KRISHNA ALIASRAJESH AND RAMDHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition, as stated by the petitioners, are that the petitioners Krishna @ Rajesh and Ramdhari were convicted u/s all IPC and were acquitted u/s 457/380 IPC, in three different cases, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa. On appeal, their conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced from 2 years to 1-1/2 year and fine was maintained. THE petitioners preferred three revision petitions before this Court which were also rejected by this Court vide order dt. 31. 8. 90. THE present petition u/s 482 r/w Sec. 427 Cr. P. C. has been filed, praying that the sentences passed in all the three cases should run concurrently. Notices were issued. Arguments have been heard.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Mulayam Singh V. State (1974 Cr. L. J. 437) wherein their lordships have held that neither the trial court nor the appellate court is competent to exercise discretion u/s 397 (1) of Old Cr. P. C. after the judgment has been signed but it has further been held that the High Court, u/s 561-A of Old Cr. P. C. is competent to direct that the sentence of imprisonment under a subsequent conviction shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. Reliance has also been placed on Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2) wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of an application u/s 427 Cr. P. C. ordered that it will be just and proper, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already remained in jail for a period of 2 years 8 months, that the substantive sentence awarded to him in seven different cases, should be held to run concurrently. In that case, the accused had been convicted for offences u/s 457 r/w 380 IPC and the sentence awarded was one year and six months. Reliance has also been placed on Bachana Ram V. State of Rajasthan (3) wherein another learned Single Judge of this Court, while dealing with a petition u/s 482 Cr. P. C. ordered, under inherent powers of the High Court, that if the ends of justice require, all the sentences passed in the four different criminal cases should be ordered to run concurrently. In that case also, the accused had been punished u/s. 457 IPC for one year RI in three case and u/s 457/357 IPC, for three years' RI which was reduced by the High Court in revision, to one year.

(3.) HE has further brought to my notice another judgement of this court in 1988 (1) RLR 692 where in this Court did not exercise its discretion in ordering that the sentences in the two cases should run concurrently. The accused petitioners had been sentenced in three different cases and awarded separate terms a convicted for conducting eye operations, where a large number of persons became blind. In that case, the cases of Mohan Lal (Supra) were distinguished.