AMARNATH UMAKANTH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banaganapalli in CC No.30 of 1997 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years through judgment dated 3-7-1997. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.83 of 1997 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. However, the said Criminal Appeal was dismissed on 19-12-1997. Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banaganapalli in CC No.30 of 1997 became final.

(2.) Petitioner along with two others was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur in CC No.25l of 1996 on 6-5-1997. Though the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.69 of 1997 against the said conviction and sentence before the n Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the same was also dismissed on 19-12-1997. Thus, the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur in CC.No.251 of 1996 on 6-5-1997 became final.

(3.) Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool who dismissed the two Criminal Appeal Nos.83 of 1997 arising out of CC No.30 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No.69 of 1997 arising out of CC No.251 of 1996, on the same day i.e., on 19-12-1997 ought to have seen that both the offences in CC No.251 of 1996 and in CC No.30 of 1997 have been committed by the petitioner within a short span and in quick succession and that the nature of offences in both the cases are one and the same ought to have directed both the sentences imposed on the petitioner in two separate CCs. to run concurrently Counsel further contended that even in the absence of a specific direction from the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool directing both the sentences imposed on the petitioner to run concurrently, the High Court exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC is sufficiently clothed with powers to make both the sentence to run concurrently. In support of his contentions, learned senior Counsel has relied upon the following decisions reported in Shersingh v. State of M.P., 1989 Crl.L.J. 632, Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad, AIR 1988 SC 2143, and in V. Venkateswarlu v. Stale of Andhra Pradesh, 1987 Crl.L.J. 1621.