IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2237 of 2007. Rahul @ Pappu son of Shri Kalu @ Devi Lal. VERSUS The State of Rajasthan through P.P. Date of Order :::: 05/02/2009. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. K.S. Chandel, Public Prosecutor for the State By the Court : This miscellaneous petition, under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner namely; Rahul @ Pappu, with the averment that he was convicted and sentenced in the following cases :- S.No. Case No. Date of Judgment Offence U/s. Term of Judgment Judgment passed by 1 FIR No. 80/2002 04/12/02 395 & 397 IPC 7-years Addl. Sessions Judge Gurgaon 2 FIR No. 106/2000 27.06.2003 392/34 IPC 7-years ACJM Jaipur District Jaipur 3 FIR No. 117/2000 06/08/03 365 & 394 IPC 3-years Judicial Magistrate 1st Class No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur All the sentences in the above noted cases have attain finality. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prayed that the sentences in all these cases may be directed to run concurrently. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 13.10.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1920/2006 (Mahavir Sharma Vs. State), wherein it has been held that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner, having ten cases, shall be ordered to run concurrently. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the petitioner is simultaneously sentenced and convicted by the different Courts for same type of offence. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and Others, reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. Page 2143 the learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner should not be ordered to run concurrently. More-so, in one of the cases, referred here- in-above, he has been convicted by the Gurgaon Court, which falls out of jurisdiction of this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, I have perused the relevant judgment as well as the case law cited at the bar. As per Section 427 (1) of the Cr.P.C. when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. It is pertinent to mention here that the sentence passed by the Gurgaon Court cannot be ordered to run concurrently, along with the sentences passed by the Courts of Rajasthan, meaning thereby that no order can be passed by this Court for the sentence awarded by the Gurgaon Court, but the sentences passed by the Courts having Rajasthan jurisdiction, can be ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner has been convicted for the two offence by the Magistrate having jurisdiction of Rajasthan, which falls under the jurisdiction of this Court. In one of the cases, he has been sentenced to undergo 7-years imprisonment and in another case for 3-years imprisonment. The relevant paragraphs of the cited judgment i.e. Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention) Ahmedabad & Others (supra) are as under : 9. The Section relates to administration of criminal justice and provides procedure for sentencing. The sentencing court is, therefore, required to consider and make an appropriate order as to how the sentence passed in the subsequent case is to run. Whether it should be concurrent or consecutive? 10. The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different. From bare perusal of the above cited judgment, it reveals that if a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different. In the instant case, the petitioner has been convicted under the Indian Penal Code and after having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice to allow this miscellaneous petition. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in F.I.R. Nos.106/2000 and 117/2000 shall run concurrently, but the sentences imposed upon him for default in payment of fine shall be undergone by him consecutively. (Bhanwaroo Khan) J. ashok/