1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1501/2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.44/2007 AND 219/2006 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. Date: 29.09.2010 This application is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State. The applicant seeks direction to the effect that the sentences awarded to him in two different cases may be directed to be amalgamated for the purpose of running them together. He has been convicted in Sessions Case No.202/2004 for offence punishable u/s 376 (g) of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. In yet another case, he has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Pathardi for offence punishable 2 u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code in RTC No. 86/2005 and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of three years. The question is whether the 10 years sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the applicant for offence of rape and the three years simple imprisonment awarded to him for the offence of theft in two distinct cases can be directed to run concurrently. In M.R. Kudva V/s State of A.P. (AIR 2007 SC 568), the Apex Court held that inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not an appropriate remedy when neither trial Court nor the High Court had exercised jurisdiction u/s 427 while passing the judgments in two separate cases. In the matter where there are separate convictions and separate sentences awarded in two distinct and different offences, unless while deciding the criminal appeal filed against judgment of the Court of Sessions, the High Court would take cognizance of sentence awarded in another case and would make it concurrent with one which is awarded in the sessions case, the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is impermissible. It is important to notice here that the Criminal 3 Appeal Nos.219/2006 and 44/2007 were heard together by a Division Bench of this Court. Criminal Appeal No.219/2006 filed by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence and Criminal Appeal No.44/2007 filed by the applicant & Manik Mohan Gaikwad challenging their conviction & sentence came to be dismissed by the Division Bench. Under the circumstances, the application u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and as such is dismissed. (V.R. Kingaonkar, J.) Dt/- 29.09.2010 ndk/cr299105