1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner has preferred this petition to direct the sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment imposed on him in C.A.No.484 of 2002 in S.C.No.186 of 2001, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore to run concurrently with the sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment imposed on him in C.A.No.99 of 2000 in S.C.No.120 of 1989 on the file of the Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner had been facing the trial in two sessions cases viz. S.C.No.120 of 1999 and 186 of 2001, for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. respectively, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

3. In the Sessions Case No.120 of 1999, after the completion of trial, he was found guilty under Section 304(i) of I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to suffer ten years of rigorous imprisonment on 30.07.1999. Challenging the order of conviction, he had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.99 of 2000 along with a petition for suspension of sentence.

4. While admitting the appeal, the sentence was also ordered to be suspended. On final hearing, the appeal in C.A.No.999 of 2000 was dismissed on 25.10.2002, after confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court.

5. While he was on suspension of sentence in appeal in C.A.No.99 of 2000, he was charged for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. in connection with the case in Crime No.341 of 2000, on the file of the second respondent herein. In the meantime, the trial proceedings were initiated in S.C.No.186 of 2001 in respect of the case in Crime No.341 of 2000, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore and on completion of trial, the petitioner was found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. convicted thereunder on 10.10.2001 and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Challenging the order of conviction, the petitioner had also filed an appeal before this Court in C.A.No.484 of 2002 and on final hearing the petitioner was found guilty under Section 304(i) I.P.C. instead of 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer seven years of rigorous imprisonment by the Judgment dated 28.10.2004.

6. Under this background, the petitioner has comeforward with this petition under Section 427 r/w 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Heard bothsides.

8. Mr.R.John Sathiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been in incarceration for nearly about ten years and that he is having family and children and he has to feed their family by doing coolie work. Since he has been languishing in prison for about ten years, his family has been suffering without the presence of sole breadwinner. He has also maintained that the petitioner has also felt remorse and willing to join with the main stream of the society and therefore he has urged that both the sentences, which were imposed on the petitioner might be ordered to run concurrently.

9. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions:

i. Lakshmi @ Mookkayee @ Marudayee vs. Inspector General of Prisons, reported in 1996-2-L.W.(Crl.)716,

ii. K.Arunachalam vs. State, etc. & Others, reported in 2001-1-L.W.(Crl.)439,

Further, he has also placed reliance upon two unreported Judgments of this Court in C.A.Nos.99 of 2000 and 484 of 2002.

10. In the case of Lakshmi @ Mookkayee @ Marudayee vs. Inspector General of Prisons, reported in 1996-2-L.W.(Crl.)716, a question was arisen before this Court as to whether the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is competent to direct the sentences to run concurrently when the convictions and sentences have been passed by two Sessions Court. The petitioner was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Vridhachalam for an offence under Section 395 I.P.C. for a period of three years on 07.12.1982 in S.C.No.170 of 1982. While undergoing the sentence, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Distri