1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Criminal Original Petition(MD) No.8321 of 2011 Selvam .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vilathikulam Police Station, Tuticorin District crime Nos.283 and 298 of 2009 3.The Inspector of Police, Pudur Police Station, Tuticorin District. Crime Nos.45 and 61 of 2009. .. Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to pass an order to direct the sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vilathikulam in C.C.Nos.22, 23, 45 and 46 of 2010 dated 02.03.2011 to run concurrently. For petitioner :Mr.G.Marimuthu For Respondents :Mr.K.V.Rajarajan Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R The petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to pass an order to direct the sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vilathikulam in C.C.Nos.22, 23, 45 and 46 of 2010 dated 02.03.2011 to run concurrently. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a convicted person and he was convicted for the following cases: (i) In C.C.No.22 of 2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam found the petitioner/accused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 guilty for the offence under Section 457 of I.P.C and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. for the offence under Section 457 I.P.C. ii) In C.C.No.223 of 2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo two years S.I. each for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. iii)In C.C.No.45 of 2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 384 of I.P.C and he was convicted and sentence to undergo two years R.I. for the offence under Section 384 I.P.C. iv)In C.C.No.46 of 2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 384of I.P.C and he was convicted and sentence to undergo two years S.I. for the offence under Section 384 I.P.C 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court, while sentencing him to undergo two years R.I. in each cases, has not ordered the sentence in all the cases to run concurrently or to run consecutively. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that since the petitioner/accused spent the period of imprisonment viz., two years R.I., he is entitled for the benefit of the sentence in all the cases to run concurrently and hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present application to order the above said sentences in all cases to run concurrently. To substantiate his case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the decisions of Apex Court and High Court and he prayed for the allowing of the petition. 5. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to order the sentences to run concurrently and he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 6. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the material on records. 7. Perusal of the records would show that the petitioner Selvam, who is an accused in C.C.Nos.22, 23, 45 and 46 of 2010 was convicted two years R.I. each for the offence under Sections 457, 457 and 380, 384 and 384 I.P.C. respectively. But, there is no specific direction to the effect that all the sentence in four cases to be run concurrently. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision of this Court in (2010) 2 M.L.J (Crl.) 1031 (G.Rengarajan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, SPE/CID/CBI, Chennai), wherein, this Court has held that when the accused was sentenced in three cases on the same day one after the other, the trial Court was competent to exercise its discretion to direct that the subsequent sentence (in the case decided subsequently) to run concurrently with earlier sentence in the case earlier decided. That has been followed by the decision of this Court in Ravi @ Ravichandran Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Elachiapalayam Police Station, Namakkal District and another reported in (2011) 2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 338, wherein, this Court has held that the High Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may direct in the interest of justice to run both sentences concurrently when two separate sentences are awarded in two different trials. 9.Considering the above citation along with the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get the order of the sentence to run concurrently and this petition is liable to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the sentence passed in C.C.Nos.22, 23, 45 and 46 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam are ordered to run concurrently. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vilathikulam Police Station, Tuticorin District 3.The Inspector of Police, Pudur Police Station, Tuticorin District. 4.The Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.G.Marimuthu, Advocate, Sr.No.23157 ssk/26.07.2011 /7c -3p/- Order Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8321 of 2011 15.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/