acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2197 OF 2008 Shaikh Shamim Shaikh Anwar …Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. ---- None for the Applicant. Mr. Y.S. Shinde,APP for the State. ---- CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 9TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. On 3rd July, 2009 submissions were heard for final disposal of the application. This is an application received through the Jail praying for a direction for concurrent running of sentences. By judgment and order dated 12th December 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad in Sessions case no.11 of 2004, the applicant who is accused no.3 therein, has been convicted for the offences under Section-395 read with Section-397 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section-3 read with Section-25 of Indian Arms Act. For the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code he has been : 2 : sentenced to suffer with rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. For the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.500/-. For the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. The said sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. In Sessions case no.12 of 2004, the applicant has been arraigned as accused no.3. By Judgment and order dated 13th December 2007, the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 395 read with Section-397 of the Indian Penal Code. For the said offence he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a find of Rs.1000/-. He has been also convicted under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a one year. For the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant is in jail from 24th December 2003 and the applicant will have to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 16 years from the said date as a result of the said two orders. : 3 : 2. Though in view of the decision of the full bench of this Court, such relief can be granted, the learned APP for the State submitted that this is a case where such relief cannot be granted as the offences alleged against the applicant are of very serious nature. 3. It is true that the offences arise out of the different incidents, but the alleged offences have been committed on the same day i.e. on 12th December 2003. Maximum substantive sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in both the cases is of rigorous imprisonment for eight years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a case where power under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will have to be exercised and the sentences will have to be ordered to run concurrently. It is obvious that this order is subject to the final outcome of the appeals, if any, preferred by the State as well as by the applicant. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: a) The substantive sentences under the judgment and order dated 12th December 2007 in Sessions case no.11 of 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Niphad, as well as the judgment and order dated 13th December 2007 in Sessions case no.12 of 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Niphad shall run concurrently. : 4 : b) The application is disposed of. JUDGE