MOHD MADAR SAHEB Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner invokes the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as rigorous impriosnment powers vested under Section 427 Cr.P.C. and seeks a direction to order the sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- awarded in each case i.e., in S.C. Nos.180 of 1997, 274 of 1997, 88 of 1998 and 90 of 1998 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge at Sangareddy for the offences under Sections 399 and 395 IPC to run concurrently with the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded in each case i.e., S.C. No.301 of 1997 and S.C. No.303 of 1994 on the file of the IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioner further seeks a direction to order the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded in each case i.e., in S.C. No.301 of 1997 and 303 of 1997 on the file of IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to run concurrently.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the unreported judgments rendered in Boya Anjaneyulu v. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Hyderabad (Crl. M.P. No.2248 of 1994) and Konda Ashok v. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Hyderabad (Crl. M.P. No.2535 of 1994) and contended that the sentences awarded therein were ordered to run concurrently. On the other hand the learned. Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in V. Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (1987 Crl.L.J. 1621) and contended that the petitioner is a professional dacoit and therefore the discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The entire law has been summarised in V.Venkateshwarlu's case (supra) and the relevant portions read as under:

(3.) The proposition of law enunciated in the above case, is followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shersingh v. State of M.P., 1989 Crl.LJ 632. Insofar as the applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that this Court has ample power to correct the mistakes committed by the Subordinate Courts to avoid miscarriage of justice. Section 31 Cr.P.C. reads as under: