SITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although she has been convicted for the offence under Section 397 (sic 379) of I.P.C. in three separate trials, and although she has been sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment each in the two trials, two years' simple imprisonment in one trial, in case her sentences are not directed to run concurrently, she will have to serve eight years' of imprisonment. Therefore, she has prayed that her sentences may be directed to run concurrently, rather than consecutively. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Vimal Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 789 and on the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 183 .

(2.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that according to Section 427 Cr.P.C., in case a person has been convicted and sentenced in one trial, and in case, he/she were to be convicted and sentenced in another trial, subsequently, the sentences would run consecutively and not concurrently.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited at the Bar.