Ansari vs State

T. Sudanthiram, J.—The petitioner herein stands convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam for an offence u/s 379 IPC in C.C. No. 175 of 2005 and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment, by judgment dated 16.08.2005. The petitioner was also convicted in another case for offences under Sections 458, and 394 r/w 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthamapalayam in S.C. No. 213 of 2005 by judgment dated 31.03.2006. The present petition is filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C seeking an order from this Court directing the sentence of imprisonment imposed in both the cases to run concurrently. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent.

Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, if directed by Court, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

In this case, the judgment in S.C. No. 213 of 2005 was pronounced by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthamapalayam convicting the accused and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment. No order was passed by the Sessions Court directing the said sentence to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment already imposed on the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam in C.C. No. 175 of 2005. At that time, no prayer was made before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthamapalayam, by the petitioner and it was not brought to the notice of the Court also. Now, the petitioner seeks this Court to invoke the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and to direct the sentence of imprisonment imposed in both the cases to run concurrently.

Even if the conviction and sentence had become final and the trial Court or appellate Court or revisional Court had not exercised its discretion u/s 427(1) Cr.P.C., the inherent power of the High Court is not fettered and it can be invoked at any stage in appropriate cases, though not in all cases and judicial discretion should be exercised carefully and not as a matter of routine for ordering a direction that the sentence of imprisonment imposed in two different cases at different point of time to run concurrently. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the petitioner is in prison for nearly 7 years, who is trying to rehabilitate himself, it is ordered that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 213 of 2005 shall run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam in C.C. No. 175 of 2005. Accordingly, this petition is ordered.