The exercise of discretion under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. to allow concurrent running of sentences depends on the nature of the offences, the appellant's circumstances, and the potential impact on the appellant's incarceration.

JUDGMENT

1. The appeal had been filed by the appellant for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13th July, 2018 and order on sentence dated 19th July, 2018 in FIR No.7/2017 under sections 419/394/395 IPC PS Bhalswa Dairy.

2. The appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 395/170 IPC and was sentenced to a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs.7,000/- (6 months SI in default of payment of fine) for offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- (2 months SI in default of payment of fine) for offence punishable under Section 170 IPC, both sentences to run concurrently, benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. being given.

3. Since the appeal has been pending final adjudication by this Court, learned counsel for the appellant had filed an early hearing application reiterating an earlier request made under Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C. seeking disposal of the appeal by allowing concurrent running of sentences awarded to the appellant in FIR No.7/2017 (referred to as "FIR 1" for convenience) with sentences awarded in two other cases FIR No. 815/2016 (referred to as "FIR 2" for convenience) & FIR No. 711/2016 (referred to as "FIR 3" for convenience) both registered under sections 365/392/34 IPC at PS Narela. The appellant was sentenced for a period of 3 years each in FIR 2 and 3. Sentences awarded in FIR 2 and 3 have attained finality as the appellant did not challenge the sentences.

4. Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C. gives discretion to the Trial Court or the Appellate Court to direct concurrent running of subsequent sentences arising out of convictions in different cases for a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment even for cases arising out of different incidents at different points of time. The discretion is to be exercised depending upon the nature of the offences committed and the facts in each situation. The predominant consideration which is used as per the learned counsel for the appellant, is the long incarceration which would result if sentences were to run consequently. In the present if case the appellant is to serve sentences for all 3 FIRs, he would be serving 13 years (7 years + 3 years + 3 years). Further, as per the report of the Probation Officer, the appellant belongs to a poor stratum of society and his conduct in jail in the last 6 years has been good and he has been recommended to be released. The appellant was arrested in FIR 1 on 5th January, 2017 and was impleaded in other two FIRs on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement. As per the nominal roll his period of incarceration as an undertrial in FIR 1 was from 8th January, 2017 to 18th July, 2018. He was also arrested on 9th January, 2017, the very next day in FIR 2 and 3. He served a sentence of 3 years in FIR 2 from 9th January, 2017 to 8th October, 2019 and in FIR 3 from 9th October, 2019 to 25th May, 2021. The sentence in FIR 2 and 3, as per the nominal roll, is already complete. The issue which arises is that the sentence period in FIR 1 will now start from 26th May, 2021 if the period he has already undergone for about 6 years in other two FIRs is not adjusted.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions in support of her submissions: Yamin v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 33; Benson v. State of Kerala, (2016) 10 SCC 307; Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2017) 5 SCC 53; Iqram v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1735; and Murugan @ Panni Murugan v. The State by Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) 4142/2022.

6. This Court in Yamin v. State, (supra) in an appeal of similar nature had held that the appellant had been languishing in jail for more than 12 years and if the remaining sentence was directed to run consecutively, he would have been in a long incarceration for a period of 24 years and therefore, directions were given for 7 years sentence to run concurrently.

7. Ld. APP has refuted the contentions of learned c