SHERSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant who is undergoing sentences in two different case has sent a petition from jail to make the sentences passed in those two case to run concurrently by invoking inherent powers of this Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In view of the conflicting decisions us to whither the inherent powers can be invoked under S.482 when there is a specific provision under S.427(1) of the Code, the learned single Judge has referred the following questions for decision by Full Bench :-

(2.) The applicant along with others was prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 21/84 decided on 12-4-1984 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Durg, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of two years under S.148, IPC and under S.307/149 he was sentenced for a term of 5 years. It does not appear that any appeal was preferred against the convictions and sentences. The applicant along with others was again prosecuted in S.T. No. 45/84 decided on 25-9-1984 by the II Additional Sessions Judge. Durg, and so far as the applicant is concerned, he was convicted under S.395, IPC and sentenced to R.l. for 5 years. He preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1331/85 which was decided by this Court on 10-4-1984 maintaining his conviction but reducing his sentence from 5 yeas to 4 years R.I. It appears that neither the prosecution nor the applicant referred to the earlier conviction nor the trial Court invoked its power under S.427(1) of the Code. The present application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by the applicant from jail on 15-6-1987. The matter came to be heard by the learned single Judge who made the aforesaid reference by referring to the Commentary of Sarkar on Criminal Procedure Code, 5th Edition under S.427(1) at page 710, by referring to the various decisions of different High Courts that inherent powers cannot be invoked under S.482 when there is a specific provision under S.427(1) and since the applications are frequently made in this court even long after dismissal of appeals or revisions against subsequent convictions, therefore, the question is of great public importance and it has to be decided by Full Bench.

(3.) Section 427(1) provides as under :-