STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SULTAN GAFOOR SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent faced Criminal trial in Sessions Case No.599 of 1995 before the learned Sessions Judge for Gr. Bombay and the learned Sessions Judge for Gr. Bombay convicted the respondent under Section 392 r/w.Section 397 r/w. Section 34 and ordered that he should undergo r.i. for 9 years. The respondent was also convicted under Section 452 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The Addl. Sessions Judge ordered that the respondent should undergo r.i. for 5 years. The respondent was required to face another sessions case before the same Addl. Sessions Judge for Gr. Mumbai being Sessions Case No.602 of 1995. The judgment in the said case was also delivered on 29.9.1998 and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for Gr. Bombay convicted the respondent under Section 392 r/w. Section 397 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge for Gr.Bombay has convicted the respondent under Section 452 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge for Gr. Bombay in the second case ordered that the respondent No.1 who stands convicted in Sessions Case No.599 of 1995 would undergo the sentence in this second case concurrently with the sentence awarded by him in Sessions Case No.599 of 1995. Being aggrieved by this Order the State has preferred this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned advocate Ms. Jhaveri in support of the revision application and according to her the learned Sessions Judge ought not have granted the benefit of running the sentence concurrently in two different sessions cases particularly when the allegations were of serious nature, namely robbery with dangerous weapons. She had drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 427 and had submitted that discretion ought to have been exercised by the learned Sessions Judge sparingly and it was wrong on the part of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to pass the impugned Order. She had relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussein vs. Asst. Collector of Customs reported in AIR 1988 SC 2143 to contend that if the transactions relating to the offence involved is not the same or the facts constitute the two offences are quite different the provisions of Section 427 ought not to be complied. She had therefore pressed for an order in favour of the State on this revision application.

(3.) After having considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the State, I am inclined to observe that the respondent was in the custody of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, atleast on the date of the judgment i.e. on 29th September, 1998. Today, we are in the year 2008. The respondent was directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of 9 years. This will mean that the respondent must have already finished the jail terms particularly because the memo of revision petition states that the judgment and Sessions Case No.602 was challenged in the Criminal Appeal and the bail was rejected. In my view, after such a lapse of time it would not be proper to go into the conclusion as to whether the impugned order was wrong or otherwise. In my view, in the peculiar facts of the case, the merits of the impugned Order need not be reopened. Accordingly, no interference is required and as such the impugned revision petition is required to be rejected. Hence the Order. ORDER