BHASKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed by the two accused who were convicted for counterfeiting of currency notes and other allied offences. Crl. M. P. 966/77 is by the 14th accused in S.C. 29 of 1975 of the Court of Session, Trichur. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner were confirmed by this Court in Crl. A. 31/76. There was another case against the same person S.C. 60 of 1975- wherein also he was convicted. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by this Court in Crl.A. 121/76. There were similar conviction and sentence in the above two cases against the petitioner in Crl. M.P. 967/77. The conviction and sentence in S.C. 29/75 were confirmed in Crl. A. 29/76 and the conviction and sentence in S.C. 60/75 were confirmed in Crl. A. 120/76. Crl. A. 120 and 121/76 were disposed of by this Court on 5th July, 1977 while Crl. A. Nos. 29 and 31/76 were disposed of on 18th August, 1977. In the present petitions filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners pray that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court be invoked and an order passed under S.427 Cr. P. C. directing the sentences in the two cases to run concurrently.

(2.) The relevant portion of S.427 Cr. P. C. reads;

(3.) There is no doubt that under the above provision the Court is competent to direct that the sentences of imprisonment awarded in two separate cases should run concurrently. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would, however, argue that the occasion for the exercise of such power is when the court disposes of the two cases or when the last case is disposed of. In case the court omits to make the direction then, there is the bar of S.362 Cr. P. C. to make a subsequent exercise of the power tinder S.427 Cr. P. C. S.362 Cr. P C. reads: