The discretion to make sentences concurrent under Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised judiciously, considering factors such as the nature of offenses, prior criminal record, and sentencing policy.

A.N.Jindal, J.

1. This judgment of mine shall dispose of eight connected Criminal Appeals Nos. 305-SB of 2005, 1356-SB of 2004, 1486-SB of 2004, 1901-SB of 2005, 1099-SB of 2005, 2280-SB of 2004, 1669-SB of 2004, 471-SB of 2005 and three Criminal Misc. Nos. 28067-M of 2007, 75764-M of 2006 and 75766-M of 2006, having arisen out of the three different judgments passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, which are as under:-

Sr. No. Paticulars Names of accused Date of judgment sentence 1 FIR No. 230 dated 10.06.2003 , under Sections 395, 397, 120-B & 412 I.P.C., Police Station DLF, Gurgaon Tinkesh son of Radhey Shyam Goel, Sameer Ahmad son of Rashid Ahmad, Sunil son of Uma Shankar Pandey, Sonu @ Mohamma d Sabir son of Rahumudc in 08/05/04 Accused Tinkesh, Sameer Ahmad and Sunil were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-each for the offence under Sections 395 read with Section 397 IPC and accused Sonu @ Mohammad Sabir was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-under Sections 120-B. 395/397 IPC

2 The allegations against the appellants are regarding the house breaking with an intention to cause injury, commit dacoity and recovery of stolen articles.

3. The arguments in all the three appeals have been heard with the help and assistance of the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the parties do not assail the judgments of conviction awarded against the accused in all the FIRs.

4. In any case, having scrutinized the records, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the offences against the accused. The witnesses are quite consistent with regard to the date, time and place of occurrences. The recoveries of the rticles taken by way of theft, robbery or dacoity stand duly proved against them. The medical evidence also fits in with the ocular version, as such the findings with regard to guilt of the accused persons, recorded by the Courts below, in all the eight appeals, stand confirmed.

5. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that though they do not assail the conviction yet the sentence awarded against them by way of impugned judgments be made concurrent by extending them benefit under Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code (herein referred as the Code).

6. Arguments heard. So far as in the three applications, moved on behalf of the accused/appellants Sameer Ahmad son of Rashid Ahmad, Sunil son of Uma Shankar, Sonu @ Mohammad Sabir son of Rahimuddin, for making the sentence as concurrent, it may be observed that since the appeals against the three criminal misc. petitions are still pending adjudication, therefore, no necessity would arise to decide the applications independently. Similar view was taken by the Full Bench judgment of this Court delivered in case Jang Singh v. State of Punjab 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 323, wherein it was observed as under :-

"If the trial Court does not pass any such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently and appeal or revision against said decision is also decided, then it may not be open for a person to seek such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently by moving an application under Sections 482/427 Cr.P.C. The view taken by one set of the High Courts that such an application can be entertained while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would no more appear to be a good law in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in M.R. Kudva case (supra). We are, thus, bound to take this view that this FIR No. 277 dated 07.07.2003 under Sections 459. 380. 411. 120-B IPC Police Station DLF Gurgaon Tinkesh son of Radhey Shyam Goel. Sonu @ Mohd. Sabbir son of Rahimuddi n. Sunil son of Uma Shankar Pandey. Sameer Ahmad son of Rashid Ahmad. 26.02.2005 Accused Tinkesh is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the o