SHEIK MADHAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aged about 60 years. He was charged with having committed the offences of house breaking and theft in as many as five cases. He pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each of the offences in each case. Even though an appeal will not lie when an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, Section 375 of Cr.Pc permits an appeal as regards the extent or legality of the sentence. The petitioner citing his old age and ill-health filed appeals and sought modification and reduction of the sentences. The Sessions Judge accepting the grounds pleaded by the petitioner modified the sentence of imprisonment and fine for each offence from three years to two years and from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.100/- respectively. However, both the trial court as well as the appellate court did not pass any direction as to whether the sentences in all the cases are to run consecutively or concurrently. Therefore, this petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.Pc for directing that the sentences in all the five cases shall run concurrently.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and placed particular reliance on the decision reported in 2018 2 L.W (crl.) 773 (Selvakumar @ Jeyakumar vs. The Inspector of Police, Seidhunganallur Police Station). Per contra, the learned Government Counsel (crl.side) submitted that the proper course open to the petitioner is to file revision cases under Section 397 of Cr.Pc and not invoke Section 482 of Cr.Pc. He also would contend that the petitioner having been found guilty in five different cases cannot seek the benefit of concurrent running of sentences.

(3.) I carefully considered the rival contentions. Of course, the petitioner could have filed revision cases and sought the very same relief now prayed in this O.P. But then, the inherent powers of this Court can also be invoked where there is an abuse of the process of any Court.