The court has the discretion to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently, having regard to the nature of offences and attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader.

2. Both the petitioners are convicts having been convicted by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira by judgment and order dated 24.02.2015 in C.C. Nos. 275/2014, 276/2014 and 277/2014.

3. The complainant is Sira Police and petitioners have been charged of the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC in all the three cases and in all the three cases the trial Court has been pleased to find them guilty and has sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC and has also sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC. In all the three cases the charges levelled against the petitioners are common, i.e., for offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 IPC.

4. The complaint against the petitioners is that on the night of 04.08.2013 at about 01.00 am they have broken open the lock of the shops, namely, R.S. Communications and stolen mobile worth Rs.12,500/- continuing further they have broken open the lock of M/s. Sri. Siddi Vinayaka Jewelry shop and stolen gold and silver articles worth Rs.23,500/- and thereafter similarly broke open the lock of New Balaji Teli Mobile Shop, all situated in the same locality and road. In the third offence it is found that they have stolen property worth Rs.24,500/-.

5. In all the three cases the trial Court has found them guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and has awarded similar prison terms. The maximum term of imprisonment awarded is three years as the Court has ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. In that view of the matter the petitioners were required to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years but while so awarding the punishment though the trial Court has sentenced the petitioners on the same day, i.e., on 24.02.2015, the Court has failed to record a finding as to whether the sentences awarded in three cases are to run concurrently or consecutively.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has filed statement of objections and also placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana and others, in Crl.A. Nos. 836-851/2013 disposed of on 05.07.2013.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the trial Court has failed to take note of the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. and ought to have ordered that the sentence subsequently pronounced in C.C. Nos. 276/2014 and 277/2014 ought to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in C.C. No. 275/2014, as admittedly incidents are alleged to have been committed on the same day. He would submit that though the maximum prison term awarded is 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 457 IPC the petitioners have remained incarcerated despite the passage of nearly six years. He would contend that the value of the properties, said to have been stolen and recovered from the petitioners, is of meager value and the trial Court ought to have also taken note of the age of accused for the purpose of consideration of the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C.

8. Per contra it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that though three separate trials have been conducted it is fairly admitted that the acts complained of have been committed on the same day and all the three trials are for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

9. Learned High Court Government Pleader would place reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in the case of O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2015) 2 SCC 501 wherein the Apex Court in paragraph Nos. 19 to 21 has observed as follows:

19. As pointed out earlier, Section 31 CrPC deals with quantum of punishment which may be legally passed when there is (a) one