The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be extended to issue a direction ordering the sentence imposed in a latter case on conviction to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in a former case as provided under Section 427 Cr.P.C.

K.N. BASHA, J.

These petitions are posted before this Bench as per the order of The Hon'ble The Chief Justice on the basis of the reference made by a learned Single Judge in order to answer the question raised which is as follows:-

"Whether the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be extended to issue a direction ordering the sentence imposed in a latter case on conviction to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in a former case as provided under section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?"

2. The crux of the question involved in this matter is that whether this Court can invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."] for granting the relief under Section 427 Cr.P.C., for ordering the sentence imposed in the former case to run concurrently along with the sentence of imprisonment awarded in the latter case.

3. It is seen that two conflicting views expressed by two learned Single Judges in respect of invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for granting the relief of ordering the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence awarded against a person in an earlier case which necessitated the learned referring Single Judge to refer the matter to a Division Bench to resolve the said conflict between two decisions. It is seen that a learned Single Judge in A.Palanisamy @ Kaithan Vs Inspector of Police, B1 Police Station, Kadaiveethi, Coimbatore and others reported in [2011] 4 MLJ [Crl.] 813, after referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held in paragraph 27, as here under :-

"27. In the instant case on hand also, the provision of section 427 Cr.P.C. was not invoked either in the original cases or in the appeals. Under the above said circumstances, Section 427 Cr.P.C. cannot be applied in a separate and independent proceedings by this Court in exercising the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C."

4. Another learned Single Judge in A.Paulraj Vs. Maria Chellammal and others reported in [2011] 4 MLJ [Crl.] 798 has taken a contrary view by placing reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court and held as here under:-

"26.Since the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Madhan Lal [supra] had considered on application filed, under section 482 Cr.P.C. the decision rendered in M.S.Kudva V. State of Andhra Pradesh [supra] may not be applicable and invoking jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., is indeed available to the petitioner."

5. We have gone through the above two conflicting decisions rendered by the two learned Single Judges.

6. It is seen that the learned Single Judge in A.Palanisamy's case [cited supra] reported in [2011] 4 MLJ [Crl.] 813 has mainly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.R.Kudva Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in [2007] 2 SCC 772 (two Judge Bench) to arrive at the conclusion that in the event of not invoking the provision under section 427 Cr.P.C., either in the original case or in the appeal, a separate application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., before the High Court was not maintainable.

7. In A.Paulraj's case [cited supra] reported in [2011] 4 MLJ [Crl.] 798, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the Larger Bench [consisting of three Judges] of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab V. Madhan Lal reported in [2009] 5 SCC 238 for holding that the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is maintainable for invoking the relief under Section 427 Cr.P.C., for ordering the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence already awarded to the same accused in respect of the previous case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhan Lal's case [cited supra] dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab challenging the order of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowing the application filed in terms of Sections 482