[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1957 OF 2006 Basavraj Dattatray Lohar ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents ... Mrs.Nasren Ayubi counsel (appointed) for Applicant Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : MARCH 13, 2007 DATE : MARCH 13, 2007 DATE : MARCH 13, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appointed for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The applicant has preferred this application through jail. 2. The applicant has been convicted in 13 cases and sentenced to various periods of imprisonment. The said 13 cases are as under: --------------------------------------------------- Sr. Case No. Name of the Date of No. Court the Judgment --------------------------------------------------- 1. RCC 76/1999 CJM Kolhapur 23.12.1999 2. RCC 80/1999 CJM Kolhapur 04.01.2000 3. RCC 257/1999 JMFC 1st Court [-2-] Kolhpaur 01.02.2000 4. RCC 363/1999 JMFC 1st Court Kolhpaur 01.02.2000 5. RCC 364/1999 JMFC 1st Court Kolhapur 01.02.2000 6. RCC 169/1999 JMFC 1st Court Kolhapur 01.02.2000 7. RCC 111/1999 CJM Kolhapur 10.12.2000 8. RCC 110/1999 CJM Kolhapur 04.02.2000 9. RCC 73/1999 CJM 1st Court Sangli 07.04.2000 10. RCC 76/1999 CJM 1st Court Sangli 07.04.2000 11. RCC 78/1999 CJM 1st Court Sangli 07.04.2000 12. RCC 107/1999 CJM 1st Court Sangli 07.04.2000 13. RCC 182/1999 JMFC 1st Court Ichalkaranji 29.05.2000 ----------------------------------------------- . Out of the said 13 cases, sentences in the cases at serial Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been directed to run concurrently, so also sentences in the cases at serial Nos.9, 10, 11 and 12 have been directed to run concurrently. The applicant has now prayed [-3-] that in the remaining five cases, the sentences of imprisonment may be directed to run concurrently. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ammavasai and another Vs. Inspector Ammavasai and another Vs. Inspector Ammavasai and another Vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur and Ors.; (2000) 9 SCC 749. of Police, Valliyanur and Ors.; (2000) 9 SCC 749. of Police, Valliyanur and Ors.; (2000) 9 SCC 749. In the said case, the first appellant was convicted in four different cases. In each of the four cases, the sentences were directed to run one after another. In the said case, Supreme Court did not desire to give benefit of sentences to run concurrently in all cases but adopted a via media and total period of 14 years of imprisonment to the appellant in respect of all the convictions was held to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 4. In view of the above, the substantive sentence of imprisonment in RCC No. 76 of 1999 and 80 of 1999 and 110 of 1999 is directed to run concurrently. So also the substantive sentence of imprisonment in RCC 110 of 1999 and RCC 111 of 1999 to run concurrently. It is made clear that these sentences shall run after the period of sentences in the cases at serial Nos.3 to 6 and thereafter at [-4-] serial Nos. 9 to 12 is completed. After the sentence of imprisonment in RCC Nos. 76 of 1999 and 80 of 1999 is over, and thereafter sentence of imprisonment in RCC No. 110 of 1999 and RCC No.111 of 1999 is over, sentence in RCC No.182 of 1999 shall run thereafter. 5. Application is disposed of. 6. This order to be communicated to the applicant who is in jail. [ V.K.Tahilramani, J.]