UMASHANKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted and sentenced for two different offences which are subject-rnatter of Sessions Trial Nos. 123/82 and 131/82 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Murwara, District Jabalpur. The present application has been filed with the request that the sentences in two Sessions Trials should run concurrently.

(2.) As far as Sessions Trial No. 123/82 is concerned, the applicant has been found guilty of offence under sections 307 and 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to four years and one yearTs R.I. both the sentences to run concurrently. In the other Sessions Trial, he has been found guilty of offence punishable under section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payrnent of fine, to a further R.I. for six rnonths. The applicantTs appeal against his conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No. 123/82 was heard and decided on 8.9.1983 and disrnissed. The appeal against his conviction in the other Sessions Trial, has been decided today disrnissing the same. Under the circurnstances, the only question for consideration of this Court is whether the sentence suffered by this applicant as a result of judgrnent in Sessions Trial No. 123/82, can be counted as sentence in Sessions Trial No. 131/82? The subject-matter is covered by section 427, Cr. P.C. which provides that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment 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. A reading of this section would indicate that as a rule, subsequent sentence shall start running after the expiry of first sentence of imprisonment. It is true that the aforesaid general rule can be changed by an order of the Court. The discretion, therefore, clearly lies with the Court to make the sentence in the subsequent trial to run concurrently with the sentence to the previous one. The discretion, however, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, the two offences have been committed on two different dates and against different persons. It is true that the first offence i.e., Sessions Trial No. 123/82, was committed as a consequence of offence covered by Sessions Trial No. 131/82. This, however, indicates the determination with which the applicant has taken the path of criminality. The second incident had arisen only because he was avoiding his arrest in connection with the first incident-indicating that the applicant has least regard to the law or its process. Under the circumstances, there is no justification what so ever for giving him any further benefit than what has already been given.

(3.) The application fails and is dismissed. Application dismissed.