IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2010 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Manohari Ram Tamta …………Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun …………Respondent Dated: May 19, 2010 Sri Rajendra Kotiyal, Adv. for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Additional G.A. for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This is an application moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) by the applicant praying therein to direct the respondent to treat the conviction of the applicant concurrently in Special Session Trial No.3 of 1987 and Special Session Trial No.3-A of 1987 to 3-O of 1987 (16 cases). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that the applicant who was a Clerk in the Govt. Girls BTC College, Gopeshwar, in the capacity of a government servant, from the year 1981 to 1984, dishonestly misappropriated the amount. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against him. Thereafter, the trial was proceeded and at the time of framing of charge, learned Sessions Judge while exercising the powers conferred u/s 219 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16.1.1988, found that the various amounts were related to year 1980 to 1984, therefore, the trial was split into sixteen separate cases i.e. S.S.T. No.3/1987 and S.S.T. No.3-A/1987 to S.S.T. No.3-O/1987. Thereafter, in each and every trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused u/s 409 IPC for one year R.I. with fine. However, in S.S.T. No.3-O/1987, apart from the conviction u/s 409 IPC, the appellant-accused was further convicted u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant filed an appeal which was registered as CRLA No.109/06 (Old No.2358/1989), Manohari Ram Tamta Vs. State, but in that appeal, the appellant only assailed the judgment and order dated 27.10.1989 passed in Special ST No.3/1987 only, however no appeal was filed for the Special S.T. No.3-A/1987 to 3-O/1987. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 6.6.2008 thereby confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial court in Special S.T. No.3/1987. Now, the applicant has come up in this petition with a prayer that all the sentences in all the split special sessions trial may also be directed to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the entire case relates to same chain of transaction. In this case, one FIR was lodged against the applicant and after the investigation, the I.O. also filed one charge sheet against him, however during trial, the cases were split into 16 special sessions trials. He further submitted that technically the trials were separated but the charges against the applicant are the same and they relates to the same chain of transaction and they are also of same nature, hence, he prayed that the sentences may be directed to run concurrently. Learned Additional GA also conceded to this argument advanced on behalf of the applicant that only one FIR and one charge sheet was filed and on 16.1.1988, the trial court split the trial into 16 separate trials and separate judgments were passed. Hence, he also submitted that the sentences may be directed to run concurrently. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as on a perusal of the record of all the trials, I find that the incident in all the cases is one and the same. Even only one charge sheet was filed in this case and after investigation, the I.O. also submitted one charge sheet. However, the Trial Judge vide order dated 16.1.1988 directed to split the trial into 16 trials. I also find that the entire case forms a common chain of transaction which were committed by the applicant one after another. Be that as it may, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be met if all the sentences are directed to run concurrently. For the reasons as above-said, the present C482 application is disposed of with the direction that the sentences in all the trials, i.e. from Special S.T. No.3/1987 and Special ST No.3-A/1987 to 3-O/1987, as directed by the trial court, shall run concurrently and not separately. The record of the case be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned. Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.) May 19, 2010