AMULYA ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was convicted by the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol on 9.4.2003 in G.R. Case Nos. 154/1995,34/1996 and 66/1996. In G.R. Case No. 154 of 1995 he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default R.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 458, I.P.C. and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default R.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 380, I.P.C. In G.R. Case No. 34 of 1996 the Petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default R.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 457 I.P.C. and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default R.I. for 6 months, for the offence under Section 394, I.P.C. In G.R. Case No. 66 of 1996 the Petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default R.I. for 6 months for offence under Section 457, I.P.C. and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to R.I. for 6 months for offence under Section 394, I.P.C. In each of the above noted cases learned S.D.J.M. directed that the sentences would run consecutively. The Petitioner has challenged the said direction in the present revision.

(2.) MR . R. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appointed by the Legal Services Authority for the Petitioner submits that the conviction in all the above noted cases having been passed on the same day and the offences of the cases being similar in nature, the convicting court in the absence of any special reason should not have directed the sentences to run consecutively. He submits that the Petitioner, who is a young man will have to undergo substantive jail sentence for 15 years and default sentence for 3 years if the sentences are allowed to run consecutively and in the process his entire life and future will be ruined. He further submits that this Court has jurisdiction to modify the direction given by the convicting Court and so for the sake of securing justice, direction may be issued to run the sentences in all the three cases concurrently.

(3.) FROM the rival contentions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State, the following points emerge for consideration: