ANTI ALIAS ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question posed before this court by the revision petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No. 62/1997 of the Judicial first Class Magistrate s Court, Irinjalakuda, is the scope and ambit of Sec. 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the propriety of making the sentences suffered by him in different cases to be concurrent.

(2.) The accused was charged with the offence of house breaking committed at 4.30 a.m. on 26-5-1996 into the dwelling house of P.W.1 and theft of gold chain weighting 40 grams kept under the pillow of P.W.2 and another gold chain weighing 23.930 grams worn by P.W.3Offences under Secs. 457, 380 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code were alleged against him.He was found guilty, convinced and ultimately sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sec. 457 and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec. 380 of the IPC.No separate sentence was imposed under Sec. 379.The learned Magistrate added that these sentences should run consecutively.

(3.) Smt.Sahana Karthikeyan, who represented the revision petition on State Brief, submitted that the learned Magistrate went wrong in making a direction that the sentence should run consecutively and that the sentences should run consecutively and that in the nature of the case they should have been made concurrent.In the revision petition the prayer of the petitioner is not merely that the two sentences imposed in the case should be made concurrent; but also that the sentences imposed on him in C.C.Nos.54/97, 65/97 and 160/97 which were cases charged by the Kodungallur Police as also in C.C.Nos. 2/97, 5/97, 7/97, 8/97 and 9/97 initiated by the Irinjalakuda Police might also be made concurrent.