1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.704 OF 2010 Shaikh Nihal S/o.Shaikh Hilal, Age-31 years, Occu-Prisoner Convict No.5816, In Central Prison, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32 2. The Inspector General of Prison, Maharashtra State, Pune, 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mrs.Bharati Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioner (Appointed) Mr.B.V.Wagh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 15/10/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail has been registered as Criminal Writ Petition, and accordingly we had appointed Adv.Mrs.Bharati Gunjal to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ directing that the various sentences, to which the petitioner has been sentenced, be directed to run con-currently with the first sentence, which has been awarded to the petitioner. 3. It appears that in RCC No.260/2000, the petitioner came to be convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 457 and 380 of The IPC, and was sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- i.d. to suffer RI for seven days, and RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- i.d. to suffer RI for seven days respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In RCC No.458/2002, the petitioner came to be convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 457 and 380 r/w. 34 of The IPC, and was sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, i.d. to suffer RI for one month, and was also sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- i.d. to suffer RI for one month respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In RCC No.428/2002, the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 457 and 380 of The IPC, and was sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years, and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, i.d. to suffer RI for 3 seven days, and to suffer RI for 3 years, and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, i.d. to suffer RI for seven days respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In S.T.C. No.19/2003, the petitioner came to be convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 324 of The IPC, and was sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years, and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, i.d to suffer SI for 3 months. 4. Petitioner, therefore, contends that the various sentences which have been awarded to him, in different trials, be directed to run concurrently. The sole question before us is that whether such a petition, claiming the relief as prayed for by the petitioner, is maintainable. A reference usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R.Kudva versus State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 2007, SC 568. The Supreme Court, at para no.11 has held as under - "However, in this case the provision of Section 427 of the Code was not invoked in the original cases or in the appeals. A separate application was filed before the High Court after the special leave petitions were dismissed. Such an application, in our opinion, was not maintainable. The High Court could not have exercised its inherent jurisdiction in a case of this nature as it had not exercised such jurisdiction while passing the judgments in appeal. Section 482 of the Code was, therefore, not an appropriate remedy 4 having regard to the fact that neither the Trial Judge, nor the High Court, while passing the judgments of conviction and sentence indicated that the sentences passed against the appellant in both the cases shall run concurrently or Section 427 would be attracted. The said provision, therefore, could not be applied in a separate and independent proceeding by the High Court." 5. In the present case, it does not appear that either the Trial Court or the Appellate Court had directed that the sentences awarded in all the cases be directed to run concurrently. Obviously, the petition therefore was not maintainable. 6. In that light of the matter, therefore, we dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1500/- (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT. 2010/cri.w.p.704-10