IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.16536-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 21, 2008 AMRIK SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate (Amicus curiae). Mr. HS Brar, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of four petitions viz. CRM 16536-M of 2008 (Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab), CRM 16538-M of 2008 (Dayal Singh v. State of Punjab), CRM 16539-M of 2008 (Jagjit Singh Jagga v. State of Punjab) and CRM 16540-M of 2008 (Rajesh Kumar v. State of Punjab). Telegrams received have been treated as petitions. In these petitions, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is that sentence awarded in various cases be directed to run concurrently. In view of the nature of the controversy and scanty record available, Shri S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, was appointed amicus curiae, to assist the court. Shri Sidhu has drawn the attention of the court towards a Criminal Misc.16536-M of 2008 2 recent judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Jang Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 323. The issue raised in these petitions was called for consideration before the Full Bench. The following has been held in para-18 (relevant portion):- “.... We are, thus, bound to take this view that this discretion though available with the trial Court, appellate Court or the revisional Court while holding trial or entraining appeal or revision but would not be so available to be exercised in isolation when application in this regard is moved either under Sections 482 or 427 Cr.P.C. What principle and consideration will govern the exercise of this discretion,a s already noted above can not be exhaustively enumerated. Certain relevant factors, as can be culled out from different judgments referred to above, may given an indication where such discretion may be exercised. These factors generally would be the nature or character of the offences committed, the prior criminal record of the offender, character his age and sex etc. ghastly nature of the crime. The offender being habitual would also be the factor, which can be relevantly taken into consideration. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that these are not the only reasons for which the Court can exercise this discretion. Discretion always is open to be exercised by any Court dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case on any relevant or valid consideration as may be considered so by the Court while holding the trial or deciding the case at the stage of appeal or revision. It may require a notice that Section 427 Cr.P.C. as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court is aimed at amelioration and this aspect may also require to be kept in view while exercising the discretion.” In view of the law as laid down by the Full Bench, this petition cannot be entertained under Section 482, Code of Criminal Criminal Misc.16536-M of 2008 3 Procedure or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. October 21, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE