THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7711 OF 2010 Between : Vemula Mondi Narsaiah ....PETITIONER A N D The State of A.P. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7711 OF 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner-accused to take a lenient view and direct the two sentences passed in C.C.No.265 of 2006 and C.C.No.899 of 2004 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, and as confirmed in Crl.A.No.37 of 2009 and Crl.A.No.36 of 2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, to run concurrently and direct the authorities to let off the petitioner from the District Jail, Nizamabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted in C.C.No.265 of 2006 and C.C.No.899 of 2004, on the same day by one and the same Court. 4. In C.C.No.265 of 2006 the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. In C.C.No.899 of 2004 the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeals in Crl.A.Nos.37 and 36 of 2009 before the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, and the same were dismissed by judgment dated 08.03.2010, thereby confirming the judgment passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor. However, the learned Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge did not mention in the judgments whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in jail for the last 14 months in connection with above crimes and since the sentences were not directed to run concurrently, it would cause hardship to the petitioner. 7. It is to be seen that even though the sentences were passed in two different cases, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can direct both the sentences to run concurrently, keeping in view the gravity of offences for which the petitioner was convicted and taking into account that petitioner had serve jail sentence of 14 months. 8 . This criminal petition is allowed directing the sentences passed in C.C.No.265 of 2006 and C.C.No.899 of 2004, on the file the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, Nizamabad and confirmed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2009 to run concurrently, the petitioner (accused) has already undergone jail sentence for a period of 14 months which is more than the sentence imposed against him in each case. Therefore, the petitioner shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. ____________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SEPTEMBER 06, 2010. YVL