The main legal point established in the judgment is that when there is a sentence of life imprisonment, both sentences should run concurrently as per sec. 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT

S.M.MODAK, J. - Short issue involved in this petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of concurrent sentence as laid down in the provisions of sec. 427 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was convicted firstly for the offence punishable under sec. 302. 341 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 30/8/2012. When he was undergoing this sentence, he was convicted on 12/2/2014 for the offence punishable under sec. 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the learned Magistrate who convicted him in subsequent trial was aware that the petitioner is in jail but still he has not given the benefit of sec. 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is subsequent development. The Petitioner was acquitted by this Court vide Order dtd. 9/8/2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 1131/2012 and 229/2019. The Petitioner has brought this fact to the notice of learned Magistrate on 23/8/2021. He called a report from jail authorities. Instead of giving the benefit of concurrent sentence, the learned Magistrate has left the issue with the jail authorities by observing that if the Petitioner has undergone sentence of 2 years 6 months ( and if not required in any other case), he be released (letter dtd. 3/9/2021, page 87). We have heard Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State.

3. Petitioner's grievance is that the learned Magistrate ought to have issued clear direction. That is why this petition is filed. It will be material to consider few relevant dates. they are as follows:

4. On this factual background, we have read the observations in the judgments relied upon by both the sides. In case of Ranjit Singh Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh reported in [LAWS(SC)-1991-8-42/ CRLR(SC)-1991-0-799], issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether a convicted accused undergoing life sentence is entitled to get benefit of concurrent sentence when he is convicted subsequently for offence of murder only. Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the difference in between the provisions of Sec. 427(1) and Sec. 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If a person is undergoing life sentence there is no point in ordering consecutive running of another life sentence. Similar is the view expressed in Dilubhai Hadabhai Vank Vs. State of Gujarat reported in [LAWS (SC)-2015-1-129].

5. The observations in above two authorities are only useful in order to understand the difference in between the provisions of Sec. 427(1) and Sec. 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. First sentence is for the offence under sec. 302 of IPC on 30/9/1998. Whereas, subsequent sentence is for the offence punishable under sec. 324 of IPC on 1/1/2001. These are the facts in that case.

6. Whereas in case of Vasudeo Shankar Rajput Alias Kanjarbhat Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [LAWS (BOM)-2013-8- 173], similar issue about entitlement to concurrent sentence had arisen. First conviction was under Sec. 302, 394 of IPC. Whereas subsequent sentence was under sec. 395 of IPC (para 3). It has been observed thus:-

"The language of the sec. is clear ad unambiguous. The sec. has been worded in imperative terms which is evident from the use of the expression, "the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence" and admits of no discretion or exception in the matter of directing the subsequent sentence to run concurrently."

In fact there is also emphasis on giving benefit of the provisions of sec. 427(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Superintendent of Jail also (para 5). Finally subsequent sentence was directed to be run concurrently.

7. Similar is the view expressed in case of Hanuman S/O Anandrao Pendam Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [LAWS (BOM)-2019-4-138]. First sentence was for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and subsequent sentence was for the offence punishable under sec. 224 of IPC. Petitioner therein was given the