Criminal Misc.No.M-10349 of 2011(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.No.M-10349 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 28, 2011 Alafdin @ Alfa ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Alafdin - petitioner has sought a direction for concurrence of the sentences, awarded to him in the following three cases:- 1 FIR No.117 dated October 18th, 2002 under Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar. 2 FIR No.34 dated march 30th, 2004 under Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Act, registered at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar. 3 FIR No.3 dated January 06th, 2004 under Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Act and Section 151 of the Railway Act and Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station GRP, Ludhiana. To support the contention, reliance has been placed upon two judgments of this Court in cases Mehal Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1987(2) RCR (Criminal) 240 and Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab 1986(2) RCR(Criminal) 566. The question arising for consideration is: Can this Court by exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code make the sentences awarded in different cases to run concurrently? The question is no more a res-integra. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the Criminal Misc.No.M-10349 of 2011(O&M) [ 2 ] petitioner are of no help to him in view of the judgment passed by a Full Bench of this Court in Jang Singh vs. State of Punjab 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 323, wherein, it was held that the power to make the sentences to run concurrently can be exercised by the trial Court and if not done so, then by the Appellate Court or Revisional Court. This power cannot be exercised by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code. Hence, the petition is dismissed. September 28, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE