S. Talpatra, J.

1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), the petitioners urge for a direction that the sentences passed in S.T. No. 22 (ST/S)/2004, dated 12.05.2005, which were confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in common judgment and order dated 12.08.2011, as passed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 57 of 2005, 37 of 2008, 46 of 2008 and 80 of 2009, shall run concurrently instead of consecutively as directed. This petition having been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is based on the provision of Section 31 of Cr.P.C. which provides limits of punishment of offence made up of several offences. Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code and runs as follows:--

71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences.--Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences/unless it be so expressly provided.

[Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or

where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute, an offence/constitute when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences.]

In view of Section 71, IPC, it has been urged that the direction to run the sentences consecutively is illegal and unsustainable therefor.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with the question of maintainability of the petition. In reply, learned counsel relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the matter of Satnam Singh Puransing Gill v. State of Maharashtra, as reported in 2009 Cr LJ 3781. Learned counsel for the petitioners laid much reliance on para 42 of Satnam Singh (supra), which is extracted hereunder:

42. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hariom alias Kalicharan Shriram & Gopal Agarwal alias Saxena v. The State of Maharashtra, 1994(2) Bom CR 219 : 1995 AIHC 489, had taken the view that the sentence would be directed to run consecutively. Though the Bench did not rely upon any of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India it adopted the approach that was adopted in the case of Amavasai's case, AIR 2000 SC 3544 (supra) and directed that the Bench was adopting a midway approach and ordered the two sentences to run concurrently and third sentence to run consecutively: While adopting this approach the Bench specifically held as under;-

In other words, where several sentences are passed against the same person, such sentences should run consecutively i.e. the one after the expiration of the other, 'unless the Court directs that they should run concurrently. Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code also enacts the rule that the sentences are to run consecutively unless the Court directs that they should run concurrently when a person is convicted on trial of several offences and several sentences are given. The discretion given to the Court under Sections 427(1) and 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code has to be exercised on sound judicial basis and judiciously. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code vests in the High Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to secure ends of justice and to prevent injustice. The High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone the Court exists. Such inherent powers vested in the High Court are quite wide but at the same time it should be well remembered that in a case like the present one conflicting interests of an individual'. liberty and the safety and security of the citizens at large should be harmoniously settled.

3. From a simple reading of par