IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 65 OF 2000 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA | ... APPLICANT. V/s. 1. Mantraya Darthya Pawar, Age 25 yrs.| (Conditional Order dt. 1.3.05 stands | against respondent no.1) | 2. Naylon Abdul Bhosale, Age 26 yrs. | 3. Baban Abdul Bhosale, Age 25 yrs. | ... Respondents. | All r/a. Kasari, Tal.Ashti, Dist. Beed | ----- Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATED : JUNE 15, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard the learned APP in support of the Revision Application. 2. The challenge in this revision application is to the operative part of the judgment and order dated 6th January, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, Dist. Nasik. By the said judgment and order, the 2 respondents accused were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 394 and 459 r.w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for both the offences and were directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each on both counts. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. It appears that there was another case being Sessions Case No. 54 of 1999 in which the respondents were convicted and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. The said judgment was delivered on 5th of June, 1998. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the sentence in the present case and the sentence in the Sessions Case No. 54 of 1999 shall run concurrently. This part of the impugned judgment and order has been challenged by the applicant State. 4. The submission of the learned APP for the State is that though offences involved in both the cases may be similar but the incidents subject matter of offence in both the cases were totally different and the facts constituting both 3 the offences were different. The submission of the learned APP is that the respondents have been convicted for two independent offences arising out of two independent transactions and therefore, the learned Judge could not have exercised power under section 427 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Code). He has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6th of July, 1998 in Criminal Application No. 1615 of 1998. He, therefore, submitted that the direction issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the sentences in two independent cases shall run concurrently is completely erroneous. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned APP. Now the law on this aspect has been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Satnam Singh Puransing Gill vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No. 807 of 2008 in the decision dated 14th January, 2009. The Full Bench held that neither the court of competent jurisdiction is divested of its power to pass appropriate order in terms of Section 427 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 nor does the accused is deprived of this statutory benefit of right of consideration by the Court, only on the ground that the accused has been tried in two or more cases separately and they arise 4 from distinct and separate offences arising out of different transactions/ incidents. The Full Bench further held that it is neither permissible nor possible to spell out universal principle or formula which would be applicable to all cases for exercise of power vested in Court under section 427(1) of the said Code. 6. Thus in view of the pronouncement of law by the Full Bench of this Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had a power to direct that the sentences in two cases shall run concurrently. In view of the decision of the Full Bench, the reliance placed by the learned APP on the decision of the Division Bench in Criminal Application No. 1615 of 1998 will not help the applicant- State. 7. The second aspect which needs consideration is whether the trial court could have exercised the power under section 427 (1) considering facts and circumstances of the case. It must be noted here that the impugned order was passed on 6th of January, 2000. The order in the other companion case was passed on 5th of June, 1998. In both the cases the substantive sentence was of 7 years and in default of payment of fine, the accused were directed to suffer 5 imprisonment for six months. It is obvious that on the basis of the impugned order, the accused must have already undergone sentence in both the cases which were ordered to be run concurrently. In view of this factual position, in the year 2009, it will not be unjust to interfere with the direction given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the sentences shall run concurrently. In view of these peculiar facts, no case is made out for interference. 7. Revision Application is accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA,J.) .....