THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1477 of 2005 Date: 20.09.2011 Between: Pastam Sailu and 2 others … Petitioners AND The State of A.P., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C. No.1477 of 2005 ORDER: A.2 to A.4 in S.C.No.158 of 2003 laid the present revision. Along with A.1, they were convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for a period of five years and were also sentenced to fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of which, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months. Aggrieved by the judgment, all the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2000 before the Sessions Court, Karimnagar. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar dismissed the Criminal Appeal. He thereby confirmed the conviction and the sentence recorded by the trial Court. The conviction by the trial Court was on 15.05.2003. 2. Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/A.2 to A.4 contended that albeit the sentence recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court was suspended during the pendency of the criminal revision, the accused could not utilize the suspension of the sentence order, in view of the pendency of other cases against them. He submitted that the revision petitioners/A.2 to A.4 have been in jail as on today. 3. The conviction in this case was in May, 2003. As much as 8 years have elapsed since then. It would appear that the accused have been in jail through and through, ever since the time of conviction by the trial Court. 4. As already pointed out, there were other criminal cases against the accused. The accused consequently could not be released from jail. In Criminal Appeal Nos.713 of 2005 and 1 of 2006, a Division Bench of this Court convicted A.2 to A.4 for the offences under Sections 376 (2)(g) and 392 IPC and sentenced them to R.I. for a period of 10 years and five years respectively. It is the claim of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the sentence of imprisonment, as recorded in Crl. Appeal Nos.713 of 2005 and 1 of 2006, may be treated to run concurrently with the sentence recorded in this case or to reduce the sentence to a reasonable extent. 5. Where the revision petitioners/A.2 to A.4 have been in jail since 15.05.2003 and where they were subsequently convicted in two other cases, I consider that it would be just and proper to direct that the sentence in the present case should run concurrently along with the sentence recorded in the other two cases. 6. Accordingly, it is directed that the sentence of imprisonment of five years, as recorded in the present case, shall run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment, as recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.713 of 2005 and 1 of 2006. If the revision petitioners/A.2 to A.4 are not required in any other case and the convictions in other cases are also completed, they shall be released forthwith, subject of course to the payment of the fine amount. 7. The Criminal Revision Case is ordered accordingly. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20.09.2011 Isn