( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.307 OF 1999 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.307 OF 1999 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.307 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. Versus Farook @ Javed Israil Shaikh .. Respondent. Ms.Alpa T.Javeri, A.P.P. for the applicant. Mr.Arfan Sait, Advocate appointed by the Court for respondent. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Ms.Javeri appearing for the State and Mr.Arfan Sait, Advocate (Court appointed) for respondent. 2. The respondent faced more than one sessions trial and this revision petition relates to an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay on 20.8.1999 in Sessions Case No.604 of 1995. The very order dated 20.8.1999 goes to indicate that the respondent herein was convicted in Sessions Case Nos.599 of 1995, 602 of 1995 and 601 of 1995. A ( 2 ) copy of the Judgement in Sessions Case No.599 of 1995 is annexed to the petition which goes to show that the charge in the said case relates to an offence, particularly called as "robbery". The learned Additional Sessions Judge while convicting the respondent in Sessions Case No.604 of 1995 ordered that the sentence imposed upon the respondent in the said case shall run concurrently with the sentence passed in Sessions Case No.599/1995, 602/1995 and 601/1995. It is this portion of the order dated 20.8.1999 is challenged by the State by filing this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned A.P.P. Ms.Javeri on behalf of the State and learned Advocate Mr.Arfan Sait on behalf of respondent. 4. In the first place, it is required to be mentioned that the impugned order by which the respondent had the benefit of suffering the sentence concurrently was passed on 20.8.1999 and at the relevant time, the respondent was in the custody. Noting the sentence passed in the Sessions Case No.604 of 1995, it is required to be mentioned that the period of imposing imprisonment order already been elapsed and this Court could not gather information from the learned Advocate Mr.Arfan Sait as regards the ( 3 ) whereabouts of the respondent because learned Advocate Mr.Arfan Sait was appointed by the Court and that the respondent could not be contacted. In other words, the question before this Court is whether the impugned order dated 20.8.1999 which relates only with reference to suffering punishment concurrently by the respondent is legal or illegal. In this connection, one can gainfully refer to the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said "Act") which permits a Judge to pass orders directing that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. Sub-Section 1 of Section 427 empowers the Judge to pass such kind of an order and that is precisely what has been done in the impugned order dated 20.8.1999. 5. As a result of this, one can say that the order dated 20.8.1999 is patently legal. 6. Learned A.P.P. Ms.Javeri appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge showed leniency without there being any cause and considering the nature of the offence and the role of the present respondent in as many as 4 cases one after the other, the impugned order ought not to have been passed because by passing such kind of an order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has ( 4 ) in a way excused the offences which have been put to have been committed by the respondent by not making him to suffer imprisonment separately. According to learned A.P.P. Ms.Javeri, if this order is not set aside, it would promote the respondent to commit offences one after the other. 7. Learned Advocate Ms.Javeri presses for setting aside the impugned order. 8. Mr.Arfan Sait appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exercised the discretion and now that as many as 9 years have elapsed from the date of passing of the impugned order which this Court shall not interfere with it, particularly when this Court is not specifically aware as to whether the respondent is undergoing the sentence or he has been let off by giving the benefit of the order dated 20.8.1999. Mr.Arfan Sait presses for dismissal of the petition. 9. After having gone through the record, I am inclined to observe that no patent illegality is shown in the impugned order dated 20.8.1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay has passed an order within the parameters of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, ( 5 ) it is required to be mentioned that there are no specific reasons mentioned in the order as to why the learned Additional Sessions Judge did pass the said order. In the normal course, when the Court is passing an order considering the provisions of law and the order being in the nature of a discretionary order, the Court should have said few words as to why the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order thereby giving the benefit of provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though the reasons are not mentioned in the order as to why the benefit of concurrent suffering of the sentence is given now when more than 9 years have elapsed, it would not be proper to recall the order and call upon the respondent to undergo imprisonment which was imposed vide order dated 20.8.1999. Keeping in view the time element, there is no need to interfere in the impugned order dated 20.8.1999 and that the petition is required to be dismissed. 10. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order :- a) The petition is dismissed. ( 6 ) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)