LAXMINATH CHAKMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, CrPC), the petitioner who is a convict in Sessions Case No. ST 37(NT/K)/2005, ST 39(NT/K)/2005 and ST 42(NT/K)/2005 has prayed for issuing a direction to the learned Sessions Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura to pass an order to the effect that the sentences passed, in the said Sessions cases, should run concurrently instead of consecutively.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case, necessary for disposal of this matter, in brief, may be stated as follows : On the basis of three FIRs lodged with the police alleging therein abduction of three different persons at three different points of time, three criminal cases were registered against the convict-petitioner, namely, Sri Laxminath Chakma and others and the respective chargesheets in the said criminal cases were submitted by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner and others. Accordingly, three Sessions cases, being ST 37(NT/K) 2005, ST 39 (NT/K)/2005 and ST 42(NT/K)/2005 aforesaid were registered.

(3.) MR. Datta, referring to the provision of Section 427(1) CrPC, has submitted that, in view of awarding separate sentences in three different trials for the same kind of offence, the learned Sessions Judge should have ordered that the sentences should run concurrently and that this Court by exercising inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 CrPC, should rectify the said defect. It is also submitted that if the sentences are not allowed to run concurrently, the petitioner would be required to suffer imprisonment for a total period of fourteen years (five years + five years + four years) for committing the same type of offence i.e. the offence under Sections 365/34 IPC, though on different dates in respect of three different persons. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the decisions held in the case of