The High Court does not have the power to order concurrent sentences under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

K.Sahai, J.

1. This application has been filed under Sec. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an order, directing that the sentences imposed upon the petitioner in four cases be ordered under Sec.397 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to run concurrently.

2. In Sessions Case No. 143 of 1960, the petitioner has been sentenced under Sec.395 of the Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 1961 from jail against that conviction was summarily dismissed by Anant Singh J. on the 26th April, 1961.

3. In Sessions Case No. 150 of 1960, the petitioner has been sentenced under Sec.395 of the Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 1961 from Jail against that conviction was dismissed summarily by Anant Singh J. on the 26th April, 1961.

4. In Sessions Case No. 58 of 1061, the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 19(f) and 20 of the Arms Act, and has been sentenced, respectively, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and five years, the sentences to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 1981 from Jail against those convictions was dismissed summarily by Anant Singh, J. on the 30th October, 1961.

5. In Sessions Case No. 99 of 1961, the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 399 and 402 of the Penal Code, and has been sentenced, respectively, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and three years, the sentences to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 1962 from Jail was dismissed summarily by Anant Stngh, J. on the 3rd April 1962.

6. The petitioner has filed the present application on the 15th July, 1964.

7. Mr. Nagendra Prasad Singh, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the unreported decision of a Bench of this court in Ekram Sheikh V/s. The State (Criminal Appeals Nos. 574 of 1960 and 546 of 1961, disposed of on the 21st November, 1962). The relevant facts in that case were almost the same as those in the present case. Appeals filed by the petitioner of that case had been summarily dismissed by the High Court, and, thereafter, he had filed an application under Sec. 561A of the Code for an order of the kind prayed for in the present case. The Division Bench considered the question whether this court can in exercise of its inherent powers under Sec. 581A, pass an order directing sentences of imprisonment passed in different cases to run concurrently. Their Lordships came to the conclusion that this court could not. The decision has been supported, in the course of the judgment, on two grounds.

One ground is that an order of summary dismissal of an appeal by this court is a judgment, and that Sec.369 of the Code would constitute a bar against alteration in the judgment. Their Lordships expressed the opinion that an order making sentence to run concurrently, when they should, according to law, run consecutively, would constitute such an alteration.

The second ground is that the inherent powers of this Court should not be used for the purpose of passing an order contemplated by Sec.397 (1 of the Code.

7a. Mr. Nagendra Prasad Singh has urged that the Division Bench decision requires reconsideration. He has supported this argument on the basis that a summary dismissal of an appeal is not a judgment, and that Sec.369 cannot bar alteration or review of that kind of an order. In support of this argument, he has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in U. J. S. Chopra V/s. State of Bombay, (S) AIR 1955 SC 633. The majority decision has been delivered in that case by Bhagwati, J. Dealing with different types of cases, including an order of summary dismissal of an appeal by the High Court, he has observed: "In all these cases there will be no judgment of the High Court replacing the judgment of the lower court and the action of the High Court would only amount to a refusal by the High Court to admit the petition of appeal or the criminal revision and issue no