V VENKATESWARLU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The offences against the property are dealt with in Chap. XVII, Penal Code, of them the offences of Robbery and Dacoity are aggravated offences and severe sentences are also prescribed. Some of the professional dacoits are getting involved in number of incidents and are being tried invariably in different Courts and are being sentenced to various terms of imprisonment depending upon the facts of each case. It is also common feature that in such cases, a convicted dacoit undergoing the sentences of imprisonment awarded in one case, is again convicted for similar offence in a different case by a different Court. Section 427, Cr.P.C. lays down that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. Not infrequently, applications under S. 482, Cr.P.C. are sent through Jail to this Court with the prayer that this Court should exercise its inherent power and direct that the two sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor, having regard to the nature of the offence and the frequent occurrence of such offences, has argued before Radhakrishna Rao, J., who was hearing this case sitting single, that this Court should generally not exercise the inherent power under S. 482, Cr.P.C. in such cases, and it was also to some extent contended that such applications under S. 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the professional dacoits should not be entertained. The learned Public Prosecutor placed considerable reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court reported in Gopal Das v. State, AIR 1978 Delhi 138 : (1978 Cri LJ 961) and also on certain observations made by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court reported in Mulain Singh v. State, 1974 Cri LJ 1397. The learned single Judge, after hearing the arguments on both sides felt that the question is of some importance and therefore is to be decided by a Division Bench. That is how this case has come up before us.

(3.) The principle question that arise for consideration is "Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under S. 401 or 482, Cr.P.C. is competent to order the sentences to run concurrently when the convictions and sentences that have been passed by the two Criminal Courts of different Sessions Divisions have become final ?"