A prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment in two different cases is entitled to have the sentences run concurrently under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C.

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. The petitioner / detenu herein has moved the extraordinary original Habeas Corpus jurisdiction of this Court to direct the two life sentences imposed upon him in SC.No.50/1994 and SC.No.175/1997 to run concurrently.

2. The petitioner was tried in SC.No.50/1994 by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai and was convicted for offences u/s.457[2], 398, 302 read with 34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment; 7 years rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life respectively, on 11.01.1996. The smaller sentences were directed to run concurrently with life imprisonment in terms of section 31 Cr.P.C. The appeal preferred by the petitioner [detenu] before this Court in Crl.A.No.142/1996 came to be dismissed on 23.09.2002, thereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial court was confirmed by this Court.

3. The petitioner was also tried in SC.No.175/1997 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, for offences u/s.302, 457, 494 read with 34, 397, 392 read with 34 IPC. After due trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Judge as follows:-

Sl.No. Conviction under section Sentence Awarded

1 302 IPC To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months RI

2 457 IPC To undergo 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months RI

3 394 read with 34 IPC and 397 IPC To undergo 7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months RI

4 392 read with 34 IPC To undergo 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo 2 months RI

The petitioner’s appeal in CA.No.1143/2000 before this Court against the judgment in SC.No.175/1997 was also dismissed on 06.08.2002, thereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial court was confirmed. In short, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo two life imprisonments in two different cases by two different trial courts.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner [detenu] that the two life sentences should have been directed to run concurrently in terms of Section 427[2] Cr.P.C. It appears from the records that this petitioner had made a similar request by filing an application by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C., in Crl.MP.No.170/2009 in Crl.A.No.142/1996, before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 15.03.2010. This Court had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.R.KUDUVA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [2007 [1] SCC [Crl.] 648] and had dismissed the prayer on the ground that this plea should have been taken only before the trial court and cannot be taken up by way of a petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. It may be relevant to state here that a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MADHANLAL [2009 (5) SCC 238] has refused to interfere with an order of Punjab and Haryana High Court passed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereby the sentences were directed to run concurrently under Section 427 Cr.P.C., in a matter relating to an accused who was convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in three different cases. The conflicting views between the judgment in Kuduva's case [which is by a two Judge Bench] and Madhanlal's case [which is by a three Judge Bench] was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in K.ARASAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2012 (6) CTC 510] and this Court held that a prisoner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case where both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court or the Revision Court, as the case may be, had failed to give the benefits under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. in the judgment. Had, either the trial Court, appellate Court or revisional Court, consciously applied its mind under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. and denied the benefits to a prisoner, then the prisoner cannot invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to o