JUDGMENT :

V.K. JADHAV, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at admission stage.

2. The petitioner, who is a life convict, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions that the life sentence imposed by the 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2005, confirmed by this Court in criminal appeal No. 576 of 2006 and the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2011, to run concurrently in terms of the provisions of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C.

(a) The petitioner was tried by the 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. in connection with crime No. 90 of 2005 and by judgment and order of conviction dated 20.6.2006, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to suffer R.I. for two years. By judgment and order dated 20.10.2008, this Court (Coram: P.V. Hardas and P.R. Borkar, JJ.) in criminal appeal No. 576 of 2006, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

(b) The petitioner was further tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in connection with crime No. 26 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 333 of I.P.C. vide Sessions Case No. 305 of 2011. The petitioner, while in the custody of the jail authority, assaulted a jail employee and thus, crime No. 26 of 2010 was registered against him as stated above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, by judgment and order of conviction dated 8.3.2016 in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2011 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- i/d to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and further convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 333 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, directing further that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The petitioner has not preferred any appeal against his conviction and sentence in Session Case No. 305 of 2011.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. are required to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr, reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. 4934 (1) the Apex Court in para 49 has made the following observations:-

"49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code' which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any