1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.9/2000 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.11/2000 The State of Maharashtra Applicant Vs. Sultan Gafoor Shaikh @ Salim Respondent Ms.S.V.Gajare for the Applicant None for respondent CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C. . These two Revision Applications are preferred by the State of Maharashtra challenging the orders passed by the Sessions Court awarding the sentence to run concurrently in different Sessions Cases.The accused in these cases are the same and they were charged and convicted for the offence of house trespass and robbery which are punishable under sections 452 ,393 read with section 34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code . 2] The accused persons have committed robbery at various places and after their arrest they were tried and were convicted in four sessions Cases . At the time of the Judgment the learned Sessions Judges specifically directed 2 that the sentences in the said respective cases to run concurrently with the sentence passed in the previous case. 3] Being aggrieved with the order on the point of quantum the State of Maharashtra has preferred these Revision Applications . 4] The learned prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the respondent/accused alongwith other accused had entered the house of the original complainants at various places. They were armed with weapon like sickle. They assaulted the residents in the flats, robbed them and ran away . The crimes were committed one after the other and therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the respondent being habitual criminal the order of the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case nos.601/95, 604/95 and 605/95 is erroneous and illegal as the learned Judges had not considered these facts and also the legal position on the point of quantum . 5] In these two Revision Applications the order in Sessions Case no.605/95 dated 27/9/1999 and 604/95 dated 20/8/1999 are prayed to be set aside. It is also prayed that 3 the cases be remanded back to the trial Court with direction to make the sentence in all the cases consecutive or such order to run the sentence consecutively be given in the High Court. 6] The sentences awarded in the Sessions Cases as referred above are as follows. Sessions Case no.599/95 was decided first on 29/9/1998 and the maximum sentence given is nine years Rigorous Imprisonment. Sessions Case no.601/95 was decided on 26/4/1999 and the maximum sentence was Rigorous Imprisonment of five years. Sessions Case no.604/95 was decided on 20/8/1999 and the maximum punishment was seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. Sessions Case No.605/95 was decided on 27/9/1999 and the maximum punishment was 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The conviction in Sessions Case no.599/95 is first in time and maximum punishment is 9 years R.I.. Thereafter Sessions Case nos.601/95,604/95 and 605/95 were decided. In all these matters the point involved is very short i.e. at the time of argument on quantum whether the concerned prosecutor appearing before the Court had made submissions that the sentence should not run concurrently 4 but it should be run consecutively. After going through the relevant portion in the judgment it is found that no such argument was advanced at the time of quantum by the respective prosecutors though opportunity to make submissions on the point of sentence was given. 7] Admittedly these are the cases of the same offender who was already sentenced for another offence of similar type. Chapter-32 of the Criminal Procedure Code incorporates all the provisions regarding execution, suspension,remission and commutation of sentences. Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code states as follows. Section-427[1] :When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. 8] Thus, the general rule is that in the cases falling under the category of Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code sentence should run consecutively unless the Court directs that substantive sentence shall run concurrently with 5 such previous sentence. In all these cases the learned Sessions Judges have passed the specific order that the sentences shall run concurrently with the previous sentence in the other cases. 9] It is necessary for the learned prosecutor appearing before the Trial Court to make specific submissions for sentence to run consecutively and if such point is not agitated before the learned Sessions Judge at the time of giving audience on quantum then such prayer of the State in the revision jurisdiction cannot be entertained. It is necessary for the State to lay foundation by making such submissions at the trial stage ,so also to assist the Trial Judge to give a thought over the quantum of sentence. 10] Secondly in the present case the maximum conviction of ten years is passed in the year 1999 and today already ten years have lapsed . So after such gap of ten years there is no propriety in passing the order of concurrent sentence. All the Revision Petitions are dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)