TASLIM AHMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 13.2.2004 and 16.4.2004. By the former order his application for converting the sentences to run concurrently was rejected by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. By the latter order the revision filed by him was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2001 the petitioner was involved in six cases of theft. For each separate incident he was tried separately, but by the same trial court namely Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Vide different judgments pronounced on different date in these cases, the petitioner was sentenced to different periods. The criminal case, the offence and the sentence are shown as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_154_LAWS(RAJ)2_2006.htm</FRM>

(3.) Despite the fact that the same Court had tried the petitioner for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, the learned trial Court did not direct that these sentences mentioned above should run concurrently. Consequently, the sentences are directed to run consecutively. Therefore, the petitioner is required to undergo a sentence of 16 years. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by this fact of having to undergo a sentence for such a long time, he filed an application before the trial court requesting it to direct that the sentences should run concurrently rather than consecutively. However, vide order dated 13.2.2004 the learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the application. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a revision petition challenging the said order. But, vide order dated 16.4.2004 the learned Addl. Sessions judge was pleased to dismiss the said petition. Hence this petition before us.