SANJEEV KUMAR SADANANDAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER the Judgment was reserved, the file of the Application was misplaced and therefore, the Judgment could not be pronounced earlier. This is an Application received through jail in which a prayer has been made by the Applicants for a direction that sentences awarded in Sessions Case No.545 of 2002 and Sessions Case No.675 of 2002 shall be ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IN Sessions Case No.545 of 2002, by a Judgment and Order dated 18th January, 2005 the Petitioners have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 392 read with section 34 read with section 397 of the INdian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. IN Sessions Case No.675 of 2002, by Judgment and Order dated 24th October, 2005 the Applicant No.1 has been convicted for offence punishable under section 392 read with section 34 of the INdian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 each. IN the said case, the first Applicant has been also convicted for offence punishable under section 392 read with section 397 of the INdian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00. IN both cases the Sessions Court has granted set-off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3.) THE learned Advocate appointed to espouse the cause of the Applicants has invited my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amma-vasai & Anr. Vs. THE Inspector of Police, Valliyanur & Ors. (2000 (9) Supreme Court Cases Page 749). He placed reliance on a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Mohan Bhanudas Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra (2004 (3) Maharashtra Law Journal page 624). He also placed reliance on an unreported decision of another learned single Judge of this Court in Criminal Application No.2474 of 2004 (Rajan Mohanlal Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra-Respondent). He submitted that the learned single Judges of this Court on consideration of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ammavasai (supra) have directed concurrent running of sentences in two different cases against the same accused arising out of different transactions.