AZAD SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been sent through Superintendent of Jail in which a prayer has been made by the convict that the sentences imposed on him in seven cases be directed to run concurrently. Out of the seven cases, four cases have been decided by other Courts outside the jurisdiction of Delhi. This Court has no jurisdiction to give any direction for the sentences awarded by the Courts outside Delhi to run concurrently.

(2.) The petitioner has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 18 months in case FIR No. 257 of 1984 under Section 379/411 Indian Penal Code , Police Station Karol Bagh, seven years rigorous imprisonment .in case FIR No. 74184 under Section 397134 Indian Penal Code , Police Station Delhi Cantt and two years rigorous imprisonment in case FIR No. 215 of 1984 under Section 379 Indian Penal Code of Police Station Connaught Place. So, all these three cases were registered in 1984 in which the said sentences have been awarded. Keeping in view the nature of the offences, I think it is a fit case where the Court should exercise its inherent powers to direct that the substantive sentences of the imprisonment awarded in the aforesaid three cases should run concurrently.

(3.) Shri Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate was appointed as emicus curiae for the petitioner at State expense to advance arguments on behalf of the petitioner and he had ably assisted this Court in coming to this conclusion based on a case cited as A.S. Naidu versus The State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 Crl. LJ. 498(1). It lias been laid down in this case by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High. Court as follows :