BHIMASHANKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate and the learned State Public prosecutor in this group of eleven petitions. The petitioner has filed these eleven interlocutory applications pointing out that he has undergone the sentence of one year that was awarded by the Court, that he is still in custody and that the Jailor is not releasing him on the ground that the earlier order did not specify that the sentences awarded in the eleven cases were to run concurrently. The view taken by the authorities is that in the absence of an order for concurrence, that each sentence will have to be served individually wbich means that the accused would have to remain in custody until the last of the sentences has been served. The contention raised before me is that this was an obvious error and that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the concurrency aspect ought to have been pointed out to the courts at the time of decision which was overlooked and that consequently, no direction for concurrence was issued. The learned Judge who had disposed of the group of civil revision petitions has retired and even though these interlocutory applications are in the form of review, consequently they would have to be heard by some other Judge which is why they are placed before this coun.

(2.) THE learned State Public Prosecutor submits that in the first instance, the orders that are sought to be reviewed now are very old orders passed before 1996 which have all assumed finality. Secondly, he submits that if final orders are passed in criminal cases, that under Section 362 of the Cr. P. C. there exists a total legal bar to the alter those orders in any respect. His submission is that this bar would apply to the orders passed at all the three levels, viz. , the Trial Court, the appeal Court and this Revisional Court and that consequently, even assuming without admitting that some variation may have been justified, that this Court is precluded from doing so

(3.) IN reply, Mr. Naik, learned Counsel who represents the petitioner-accused submits that he is conscious of the difficulties in this way but, he points out that he has approached this Court under Section 482 of the cr. P. C. or in other words that he has invoked the inherent powers of the High court and that he is not asking for any variation or modification of the earlier orders but, for afresh direction. His submission is that in a situation where the facts and circumstances so warrant, that it is open to the High Court to invoke the inherent powers and that this is one such case.