ESWARAN @ KOTTESWARAN Vs. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to challenge the letter dated 25.10.2017, bearing letter No.1128 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam in C.C.No.22 of 2017 by judgment dated 21.03.2017 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment in each of the offences and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently for both the offences. He further submitted that the petitioner was convicted in yet another case in C.C.No.23 of 2017 by judgment dated 21.03.2017 by the same learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam for the offence under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment in each of the offences and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently for both the offence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam for clarification and it was clarified by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam vide impugned letter No.1128 of 2017 dated 25.10.2017 that the petitioner is directed to undergo the sentences in each of the cases one after the other. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay(Nagpur Bench) in Criminal Writ Petition No.1036 of 2018 dated 15.02.2019 in the case of Akash Rashtrapal Deshpande and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors and the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.1653 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019 in the case of Mani vs. The Inspector of Police and Ors. and substantiated what he submits.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner had committed serious and grievous offences under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC, however he had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment only for a period of two years. If the petitioner is allowed, again the petitioner will commit the same kind of offences. Therefore he vehemently opposed this petition and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.