VADIRAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

(2.) Sri.C.N.Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a poor person, having the responsibility of maintaining his family. He is in custody since 31.7.2010 and has completed the period of five years ordered by this Court in Crl.A.Nos.1005/2011 386/2012 and 387/2012. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in State of Maharashtra and Another vs- Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, 2001 6 SCC 311 , the sentence will run concurrently in all the three cases and a direction may be issued to the concerned for his release.

(3.) Learned Additional S.P.P. while opposing the petition submits that, in appeals this Court has not interfered about the order of the trial court whereby it was specifically ordered to the effect that the sentences in the aforesaid second and third case shall run consecutively after serving the sentence in the previous case. Even otherwise, the petitioner ought to have urged the prayer which is seeking in this petition before the appellate court which he has not done and there is no merit in the case.