1 APPA 280-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.280 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.139 OF 1997 Natha Namdeo Patil ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.S.R.Chitnis, Senior Counsel with Mrs.V.R.Raje, for the Applicant Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 25TH MARCH, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The applicant seeks that the sentences inflicted upon the applicant as a result of decisions in Criminal Appeal No.112 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No.139 of 1997 may be ordered to run concurrently. The learned Counsel for the applicant places reliance on the Judgment of full bench of this Court in Satnam Singh Puransing Gill Vs. State of 2 APPA 280-2011 Maharashtra, reported at 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1351. The full bench holds that the Court has a discretion to direct that sentences imposed upon an accused tried and convicted at two different trials shall run concurrently. The full bench has categorically stated that it was neither permissible nor possible to spell out any universal formula obviously because there cannot be any Judgment encroaching on judicial discretion vested in a Court, & that discretion has to be exercised judiciously after considering the facts of each case. As far as existence of power to order that the sentences should run concurrently there was no doubt that the Court has such power and also there can not be any parameters or guide lines regulating the exercise of this power since it rests in the discretion of the Court which has to be exercised judiciously considering facts of each other. 3. The applicant has been convicted for 3 APPA 280-2011 two different offences. Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1997 arose out of the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code in a case at which he was tried, in fact, for murder. After considering the evidence it was found that the appellant had not given successive or multiple blows to the victim and therefore, the requisite intention or knowledge could not be attributed to the appellant and therefore, the case would appropriately fall under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, sentence was reduced after considering that the appeal was being decided 14 yrs after the appellant was convicted for an incident which had taken place on 3rd November, 1992 i. e. 17 years before the Appeal was decided. In Criminal Appeal No.139 of 1997. The appellant questioned his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and in the light of injuries 4 APPA 280-2011 inflicted, this Court found that the requisite intention for conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was lacking and therefore, the conviction was altered to one for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Again considering the fact that the appellant was living in shadow of conviction for 14 years, the sentences of rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.500/- was imposed. In one of the Appeals, a specific prayer for admitting to benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act was made and it was rejected. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that if the sentences are not ordered to run concurrently, the result would be that the appellant would be in jail for at least six years now which would be harsh. The appellant indulged in two separate Criminal activities which are distinct and occured with a gap of one year and did not reflect to 5 APPA 280-2011 be part of a series of acts in continuation of animosity within a short period of say one or two months. It is not clear as to how suffering two sentences for such two distinct acts would be unjust or burdensome. As observed by the full bench that the offender has to suffer the sentences for each wrong independently and therefore, the sentences are to run consecutively unless the Court otherwise drags. In these two Appeals directions that sentences should run concurrently would result in appellants suffering no punishment at all for one of the two offences both of which were serious enough, wherein the sentence was reduced after duly considering all factors including pendency of appeal for a long of time. 5. Criminal Application is, therefore, rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.) 6 APPA 280-2011