HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6304 of 2009 DATED:18.08.2009 Between: Parasinath Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6304 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Smt.Naseeb Afshan, learned counsel for the petitioner (engaged by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee) and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The petitioner is a convicted prisoner serving his sentence imposed in three cases. In C.C.No.1145 of 2003, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and a further sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy on 11.04.2005. The learned Magistrate directed that the period of remand undergone by the petitioner shall be set off and all the sentences under the judgment shall run concurrently. The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, which was specifically directed not to run concurrently by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nizamabad on 13.06.2005. The petitioner was similarly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar on 16.07.2004. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner approached this Court through the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee stating the particulars of the sentences furnished by the Superintendent of Jails, Central prison, Nellore, as per the Jail records. The petitioner further submitted that he is a native of Bihar with liability to maintain his old parents and children to be married. He also claimed to be suffering from depression and high blood pressure and further he is the sole breadwinner for his family. He, hence, requested for all sentences to be directed to run concurrently. Under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 and thus, the judicial discretion to provide sentences imposed in different cases to run concurrently is conferred on the Court. The material on record shows that in the light of the circumstances as claimed by the petitioner, such judicial discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner for which the State also has no objection. The different Courts which handed over the convictions and sentences could not have considered the matter under Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the cases arose before different Courts at different times and hence, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court should be invoked to sub serve the ends of justice by giving a direction to have the sentences run concurrently. Therefore, in exercise of the judicial discretion conferred on the Court under Section 427 and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is directed that the sentences being undergone by the petitioner in C.C.No.1145 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, C.C.No.18 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nizamabad and C.C.No.22 of 2002 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar shall run concurrently. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 18th August 2009 KH