AZAD SING 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 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.) Petitioner has been awarded sentence of R.I. for 18 months in case Fir No. 257/84 u/s 379/411 Ipc, Police Station Karol Bagh, 7 years R.T. in case Fir No. 747/84 u/s 397/34 IPC. P.S. Cantt & 2 years R.I. in case Fir No. 215/84 u/s 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 amices 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 vs . It has been laid down in this case by a D.B. of M.P. High Court as follows :