MOHAN JOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A matter of great moment, and vast application arises in these cases. What are the broad considerations, on principle and precedent, that determine whether sentence should be concurrent or consecutive.

(2.) Petitioners convicted of 16 charges and 24 charges respectively and sentenced to prison terms, aggregating 14 years 3 months and 34 years and 6 months respectively seek directions for concurrency. Petitioners referred to a decision of this court in Monian Pillai v. State, ( 1986 KLT 1370 ) to buttress their contentions. Offences found are of like character-house breaking, lurking, house trespass and theft. The nominal rolls of petitioners are appended hereto, as Annexures A and B. Petitioner in Crl. M. C. 82/88 says he had noble intentions, and these have been foiled by police, leaving a rankling feeling of revenge in him.

(3.) I have heard Sarvasree K. C. Peter, N. A. Muraleedharan and S. Gopakumaran Nair as amicus curiae, and Public Prosecutor for the State. Public Prosecutor hotly contested the claims of petitioners, submitting that petitioners Mohan Jose and Joseph alias Jose alias Captain Jose are dangerous and habitual offenders with laurels of many convictions, and suspected of many more crimes, yet to be detected. According to the Prosecutor, continued detention of petitioners is necessary to protect the public from their potential depredations.