.:'"\- ^) l-^te' IN THE HIGH COURT QFJUDICATURE OF-CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No..tM7.i?../20^>- J',6. Applicant : (hiJail) Jahir Khan @ Javed Akfatar, raatiH-EIianT@..,Jawff::]ife&^a f^3 ^•y; :^ ^^>/~ <^^ iT¥^ RESPONDENTS-. 4iA/>t •^fe&.Ansari S/o Usman Khan @ Isaail Ansari Aged about 38 years, R/o Village Chama,-at present R/o Mahuwadhoda, behind Bukbuka Masjid Police Station Khalari, DistrictRanchi,(Bihar) VERSUS • 1) State of Chliattisgarh _ Through : Stadon House OfScer,. Police Station Pafaa. District Korea (C.G.) 2) Stateof Chhattisgarh Through : Stadon House Officer, Police Station, JhluImiH (Bhaiyafhan) District Sarguja (C.G.) - ^. ' „. •^ . . ' PETmON UNDER SECTION 482 QF THE GODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE READ WFm 8ECTION 427 OE* CRIMINAL PROECEEURE CODE FQR ORDERIN6 TQ RUN THE SENTENCE CONCURRENTLY IMPOSED UPON THE APPLICANT VIDE IN JUDGMENTS OF ANNEXUER A-l. AND ANNEXURE A-2 QP THI8 HON'BLEHIGH COURT s1 Vi» i&siissesssi. Ir^''.' '•• HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTlSGARHATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr.Justice PritinkerDiwaker) APPLICANT RESPONDENTS Cr.M.P.(PR)No.1219of .L Jahir'Kh, Ansari. '^. ...... /alias Javed Akhtar @ Jahir VERSUS State bf Chhattisgarh and another. Shri Abhay Tiwari counsel for sipplicant. ShriVaibhavGoyerdh'anPLforrespondent/State. PETITIONUNDERSECTION482»270FTHECObEOF CRINllNALF'ROCEDURE. ORDER (29.01.2010) Byway of present petitton the applicant seeks thesentenGes awarded to him in Criminal Appeal No. 784/2002 {Jah!rKhan& Ravindra Singh vs. State of C.G. (Annexure A-'l)} videjudgment dated 10.5.2006 and in Criminal AppealNo. 767/2004 {Jaheer Arisari and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh)} vide judgment dated 9.8.2007, to run concurrently. 2. Facts, necessary for disposal of this petition in brief, are that vide judgmentdated24.4.2QQ2JnS.T.No. 62/2002 theapplicant was Gonvictedxindersections 395/397 IPC and Sectibh 27 (1) df the Arms Act by the Sessions Judge andSentenced to undei'go rigorous imprisonment for 10 years u/s 395/397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 27 (1) of the Arms Act. Thesajd judgment was challenged by the applicant befbre this Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 784/2002 whichwas however dismissed by judgment dated 10.5.2006 and the judgment ofthe Sessions^Judge was maintained. Likewise, in S.T. No. '95/2002 by judgment dated 31.8.2004 applicant was eonvicted for the same offenc®and was awarcted the sarne sehtence as by judgment dated 24.4.20Q2,in S.T. -No. 62/2002 and the appeal preferred there- against also came to be dismissed vide Judgnientdated 9,8.2007 andthejudgmentof.tt'ie, SessionsCourt wasGonfirrhed. " '^•f/^^r^:^^^l^^'fA.^f^V!WfFC^-^-^t:^^'f^f^r^^'v-^:l^^f^y'^^f.''-^^'^.-^''^'- ••'^•r^'^:^;^:^iiL^•^:-:^K^-'^^;'-:--i ^••rt^1^i^^T^.^?=^^I^:^?^^rf^>^^-il^L^-^^^l^--\-;^^.;^^^;:-:r--l »^^.:";.•.-l^rf.n'l. "^:^L.;-^;-.A.Li tllSai!a!aS!!!%lMUM1.1^3:>a^a!SgJliui3giH'BS!BiG!'SS^:BI^^Bl?;:'<^lSB^ ^^fiBBISBilBWB^W^^BSBSi!SiBSW5^SK".®®i'.'''%.';yl: ^^g^BBiBglj^B^^BgSN^iiiJMI^ioinygo^^.'w',!' SSWsSSESSISSSSSSSSeSiSSSSSStEsSSSKS'S^^!^^:^ BNBIg^^^B^ggKUBffilBBMdSBRWUMBI^^ys^Hosudtyt:''' R18!BSiSBBSK^B^^SSiI6S%BB9iBSBSBB19Bfii; ;^S8^:®:J^^?^~'-'~<Z<:.^ :-;. ii§3iSffi«^^ggg||^^|6HJ^|l|g|l|0|l||S»J||itJC^l^|^l^ . . , 8SlliS§S!iS;:SB[l<N^iBiltll%!^uiwL^ :-; KIBIBiB8%R31St8 IlfiMiimliMK§ti®!^^p^(W°9!. ;'; BW8ilB8SiilBiIWWi^NI'!lllBW^NSI^^OI!-iNu8S:.t|;>ns.::: ^BuJIBi.iIISun^lii^'siAiun^ UQ^SiJspun JepJO ue Aq luei.yuosi.idiu! 0} psouatues ussq sey OL|m UQsjed e s.iSyM ieqv pspiAojd : soustuas snoi/vejd yons iniM A|iuajjnouQO um IIBLIS soueiyes lusnbssqnssqi leqtsiosjip ynoo 3i|}ss8|un 'psousiues AisnoiAajd ussq SBI| aq qoiqm 0} luSLUUosudiU! sqi 10 uoiiejidxe oyiieaoueLULUOOiiBqss^iJo^iusiuupsydiU! JO lUSLUUQSUdLU! L|3nS '3JI| JOJ lUSLUUOSUdLU! jo }U9LyuosydLU! QI uoipiAuoo (usnbesqns B UQ psousiues si lusLuuosudtuijo souatuas e BuiQBjspun Apesj|e uosJQd e ueq/w (l.) - 'souayo jaq)oue jof pQoua}U3S Ape&iie jQpua^o uo soua^uss •/z^,, :J9pun SB spB8j qoiLirn uoisiAOjdiueASisj aqi 01 jeisjoiAjessaoeu eq pinoMi! 'puey ui sseo 3L)i i0 uoiiisod |enioei sqt uo uoisniouoo Aue BUIAWJP ejoieg 'g •PJOOSJ UOaiqEIIEAB siusLunoop 9L|} pssnjed puessiyed 341 JQI lasunoo pjE3[-| •g •A|UO 96eis8leud0jdde 3t|i ie peiBfliu! sq UBO 6uip983ojd luapusdapu! pue siejedss e Ouisq 11 SE pauietjeius sq IOUUBO ^zfr uoipSg jspyn uoiteoiidde 'o'd'JO Z9fr uoipss jspun yo!i!i8d e yi ieL|t siiLuqns 3H 'sBBfs sitii »B paiuBj6 eq IOUUBO LuiqAqjQjtqSnosse.tSiiaj'ejnpeoojclieuiLuuo^OQpoosqi.tozzfr uoiioas jspun uoiieoiiddB QiBjedss e*e|u oi p8|!ej sey lueaiiddeaqi teqi siiLuqns pue lueQiiddesqi jo^ |9sunoo eqtAq spBiu jsABjd 94} sasoddo sieis/siuepuodssj aqi JQI issynoo pueii jeyio eqi UQ •^ •Aiiusjjnouoo unj 0} psioajip eq Aeiu seoueiuss sqi qioq-o'd'-iOZZWZQfr "011093 JSpunsjs/uod eqi p esjojsxau! sjo^sjeqi pue s-ieeA QZ losouSiuss iief |eioi sqt oBjapuno}psj!nbsj aq pinoMeq-'sjeeAoi.jojiueLuuosudLuisnojoeu ofaepun 0} psioejip yseq seq tuieoiidde SqisssE;) OMt piessjo^e 9i|l ft qoee H! se leqi siiuiqns tueoiiddB 941 joj lesunoo •£ UiflEISgll S«SsfK»:'H MEiiii 111 ,^1^ 11^1? ^^t:^ .y?H?'il yasia ^: —-c— ^^S-^^'i-s^^w: ,'^* ^ 7. Thus, if the factual positionis seen in the light of the aforesaid legal position it is not disputed that during the initial stage of the case nor even at appellate stage, the provisions of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. remainedun-invoked. Section 482 is not an appropriate remedy to direct the sentences concurrently when no such question was raised before the trial Court or even before the appellate Court. This Court cannot exercise the inherent jurisdiction ina case ofthis nature at this stage as itwas not done at the time of passing of the judgment in appeal. That beinga^o the applicant is estopped from making such a prayer for directing the sentences to run concurrently in exereise ofthe powers under Section 482 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure. 8. In the result, the petition being without substance is liable to dismissed. It isdismissed as such. i Sd/- PritinkerDiwakar 1.. -^—^