The court clarified that unless explicitly ordered, sentences from multiple convictions run consecutively under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., accommodating set-off for time served, emphasizing the legislative intent of separate sentencing.

ORDER :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner herein is a convict in S.C.No.23 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 6 r/w 5 (k) and 5(i)(ii) of POCSO Act, 2012 and he found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections and sentenced him as below:-

2. The judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.23 of 2015 is challenged by the petitioner before the High Court in Crl.A.No.146 of 2022. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 376 of IPC instead of Section 6 r/w 5(k) and 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act, 2012. Consequently, the term of imprisonment modified from 10 years to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The fine of Rs.50,000/- is confirmed. As far as the sentence for the offence under Section 5 06(i) of IPC is upheld. This order in the appeal came to be passed on 27.07.2022.

3. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking a relief of set off the sentences for the period already undergone by the petitioner herein in connection with three other cases in which he had been convicted for a term of imprisonment for 3 years and 18 months respectively and direct the first and second respondents to consider the sentences imposed in all the other three cases to run concurrently with the period of imprisonment in S.C.No.23 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.

4. For the said purpose, the petitioner would rely upon Section 427 (1) of Cr.P.C., and few judgments of this Court, which has extended the benefit of ordering the sentence to run concurrently along with the sentence imposed in the previous conviction.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State submits that a plain reading of Section 427 (1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., and State Amendment would clearly indicate that a person, who suffers previous conviction either for a term, the subsequent conviction should run, after expiry of the previous conviction. Only in case the previous conviction is for life imprisonment, the subsequent conviction shall run concurrently with the previous conviction of the life sentence.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. The petitioner herein been convicted in four different cases for four different offences occurred on four different place and date. In S.C.No.23 of 2015 convicted to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment as per the order of the High Court in the appeal as explained supra. In C.C.No.118 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem, the petitioner is the first accused. He along with the second accused Meganathan on 04.08.2013 committed an act of house breaking and theft. Therefore, they were tried for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section