GOPAL DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six petitions. Cr. Misc. (Main) Nos. 122 of 1977, 69 of 1977, 169 of 1977, 145 of 1977, 136 of 1977 and 174 of 1977, have been referred by a learned Single Judge for determination of the question whether the High Court in the exericse of ifs inherent powers at the instance of a party who has a right of appeal or revision but has not availed himself of that right, can pass an order directing that a sentence of imprisonment awarded to such a person on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment when he is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment on an earlier conviction shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. Since the common question of law stated above arises in these petitions, it would be appropriate to dispose them of by a single judgment.

(2.) All the petitioners had been convicted separately in different cases and sentenced to various terms by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. For the purposes of this order the facts of the various cases in which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced need not be racapittflated. In fact, the petitioners themselves have avoided staling the facts in detail.

(3.) Sub-section (1) of section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein called 'the Code') envisages that 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.