The discretion to grant concurrent sentences under Section 427 should be based on sound principles of law, considering factors such as the seriousness of the crime, total length of sentence, conduct of the convict, and possibility of reform.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner, a convict, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment in three different crimes, is seeking directions for concurrent running of sentences under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”).

3. The petitioner is convicted and sentenced in the following three cases:-

(i) In Reg. Cri. Case No. 50/2015, POR dated 27/04/2015, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Sections 51(1), 39(1)(d) and 39(3) of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short “Act of 1972”), and also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) vide judgment dated 18/04/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni.

(ii) In Reg. Cri. Case No. 10/2015, POR dated 29/05/2007, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence punishable under Sections 51 read with Section 2(16) and Section 52 of the Act of 1972, and also under Section 26(1)(d)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 vide judgment dated 05/05/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Desaiganj.

(iii) In Reg. Cri. Case No. 51/2015, POR dated 08/03/2013, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Sections 9/51(1) of the Act of 1972 vide judgment dated 10/08/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tumsar.

4. It is stated that all the aforesaid crimes were committed in three different transactions and prosecuted in three different trials. In all these crimes, the petitioner is found guilty and convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions the Act of 1972 and the allied Acts.

5. The orders of the Magistrates in the subsequent two cases are silent with regard to directions under Section 427 of the Code. The application under Section 427 of the Code before the Sessions Court, Bhandara, bearing Misc. Cri. Case No. 55/2018, also came to be rejected for want of jurisdiction, as the petitioner is also convicted by the Court of JMFC, Desaiganj, Dist Gadchiroli. That is how the petitioner is before this Court. The record is silent as to the preference of appeals by the petitioner against the orders of conviction so that the Appellate Courts could have possibly dealt with the question of concurrent running of sentences. Now, the question is whether this Court, under extra ordinary jurisdiction, can examine the issue.

6. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, of which one of us was the member (Sunil B. Shukre, J.), dealt with the similar issue in the cases of Akash Rashtrapal Deshpande & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 3298, and Abidkhan @ Salman Mukhtar Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1719, and upheld its power under writ jurisdiction read with Section 482 of the Code.

7. In the case of Akash Deshpande (supra), it is held that it is the onerous responsibility of the Constitutional Courts to protect the rights of citizens pending trial and post trial.

8. In the case of Abidkhan Pathan (supra), it is observed as under:-

“1 to 14 XXXX

15. XXXX It is well settled law that when there is a failure to perform public duty or grave error of law apparent on the face of record or there is a miscarriage of justice resulting from the order passed by the Court below or when it is necessary to do so for enforcing fundamental or legal rights or to meet the ends of justice, this Court can entertain a petition of the present nature. XXXX

In the said judgment, this Court also relied on the full bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered