The court's discretion in ordering concurrent sentences is guided by the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which must be exercised appropriately and in consonance with settled guidelines.

Surinder Singh, J. - The instant petition, addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice by convict Sushil Kumar alias Shashi, undergoing sentence in two different cases, received through Superintendent Jail, was ordered to be taken-up on judicial side. Shri Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, vide order dated 13.9.2012, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

2. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned Deputy Advocate General.

3. The proposition raised before us is whether a direction can be issued by this Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order the sentences already passed and upheld in appeal in two different cases, to run concurrently?

4. In short, the facts are that the petitioner aforesaid was charge-sheeted and convicted by the learned trial Court for attempt to murder and trespass, thus sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code with his co-accused and also to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. All the sentences were ordered to go consecutively. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment, they filed Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 2004, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 8.8.2007, wherein there was no challenge or submission to the above sentences to run concurrently. The incident pertained to the year 2000. It was a brutal attack with sharp-edged weapons on Dinesh Kumar injured causing amputation of thumb and a bone deep laceration of his scalp.

5. Whereas in another case Sushil Kumar petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced for life for the offence of murder of Anil Kumar on 6.3.2004 alongwith co-accused, against which he filed Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2006, which was decided on 13.10.2009, whereby the conviction was converted to an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the appeal was partly accepted. He was thus sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. In this appeal it was not brought to the notice of the Court that he stood already convicted and sentenced in another case as aforesaid.

6. Now the convict prays that both these sentences passed in the above two cases be ordered to be undergone by him concurrently so that he may have a chance to live a normal life after completing the sentence.

7. In fact, sentencing is one of the most important facets of administration of criminal justice system. Apart from statutory restrictions, an appropriate sentence is a matter for the discretion of the sentencing Judge. How this discretion is to be exercised would primarily be a matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. The Court has to exercise its discretion guided by law and legal principles. It must be governed by rules, not by humour and cannot be arbitrary, vague and fanciful. It essentially has to be legal, regular and according to the rules of reason and justice. Once the parameters contained in Section 427 of the Code are satisfied, the competent Court is then required to exercise its discretion to pass appropriate orders in relation to the sentence awarded in a subsequent conviction, should run concurrently or consecutively with the previous imprisonment. The terms of Section 427 of the Code contained proper exercise of discretion which is inbuilt command that it should be exercised appropriately and in consonance with the settled guidelines which cannot be enlarged in its scope.

8. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers discretionary power on the Court to direct the sentence of imprisonment on a subsequent conviction to run concurrently with