1 Cri-A-206-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 206 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN (Stamp). No. 348 OF 2010 Chandra Kariya Devadiga .. Applicant (Orig. Accused No.2) Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri N.N.Gawankar, i/b. Mr. Arfan Sait, Advocate, for the applicant. Smt. A.A.Mane, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 15th July, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard. With consent, delay in filing the Revision Application is condoned in view of the reasons given in the Application. Criminal Revision Application be registered. 2. Revision Applicant was convicted by the judgment and order dated 27.7.1998 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No. 1158/1995 by the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was confined in Central Jail, Kolhapur to undergo the sentence of life imprisonment. It appears that he had escaped from the jail and 2 Cri-A-206-10.sxw therefore in Criminal Case No.309 of 2004, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 224 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- by the judgment and order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Court No.2, Kolhapur. The applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2007 in the Court of Sessions at Kolahpur. However, that appeal came to be dismissed on 19.7.2007 due to failure to remove office objections in the appeal. The present Revision is filed against the dismissal of that appeal. 3. In view of the fact that the applicant was undergoing life imprisonment and was also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years in jail, the learned Sessions Court should not have been so technical in dismissing the appeal merely on the ground that certain office objections were not removed. In fact, on that ground, revision could be allowed and the Sessions Court could have been directed to hear the appeal. However, the learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant would not like to challenge his conviction and sentence under Sec. 224 IPC in R.C.C. No.309/2004. He wants to restrict his prayer so that the sentence awarded in subsequent case be directed to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life which he is already undergoing as per the provisions of sec. 427(2) Cr.P.C. In view of this limited 3 Cri-A-206-10.sxw prayer, I do not find it appropriate to remand the matter to the Sessions Court. 4. Section 427(2) reads as under :- "427(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence." In fact, in view of this provision, a legal right has been conferred on a person who is already undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life that because of subsequent conviction wherein imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life is awarded, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. In fact, this could have been done by the jail authorities without any direction from the Court. Therefore, in view of this legal position and the limited prayer made by the learned Counsel at the time of hearing of the Revision Application, I find that the Revision Application to that extent may be allowed. 5. Therefore, the Revision Application is allowed and it is hereby directed that the sentence of imprisonment of two years awarded in Criminal Case No.309/2004 under Section 224 IPC shall run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment which the applicant was awarded in Sessions Case No. 4 Cri-A-206-10.sxw 1158/1995 under Section 302 IPC, which he was already undergoing as per the provisions of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. The Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. 6. Copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Jail. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)