IMPORTANT POINT
Sentence--Sentence imposed in separate trial for different offence subsequently upon petitioner shall be consecutive and not concurrent.

Sham Sunder, J.:- This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for direction to order the sentences, awarded in two different cases i.e. FIR No. 94, dated 13.10.94, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860, S, P.S. Sadar Mansa, and, FIR No. 97, dated 24.03.01, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Physchotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as the ‘Act’ only), P.S. City Tohana, to run concurrently, has been filed by the petitioner.

2. FIR No. 94 dated 13.10.94, under Section 302 IPC, was registered, against the petitioner. He was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He preferred Criminal Appeal No. 33-DB of 1996, before this Court. That appeal was dismissed on 28.02.03. He preferred Special Leave to Appeal No. 66 of 2004, in the Apex Court, which was dismissed on 05.04.05. In the meanwhile, another FIR No. 97, dated 24.03.01, under Section 15 of the Act, was registered, against the petitioner, at Police Station City Tohana. In that FIR, it was alleged, that the petitioner, was found in possession of 12 kgs poppy husk. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, on 30.07.05. In the aforesaid FIR, he preferred an appeal, in this Court. The sentence was modified and reduced to 02 years and the fine was reduced from Rs. 5,000- to Rs. 3,000/-. Accordingly, the instant petition, was filed, for ordering the running of two sentences, in both the cases concurrently.

3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, before the trial or the Appellate Court, such a prayer, was not made. She further submitted that the judgments, in the aforesaid FIRs, have already attained finality. She further submitted that, in these circumstances, a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is maintainable. She also placed reliance on Sher Singh Vs. State of M.P., 1989(1), RCR, 696, in support of her contention. She prayed that the sentences, in both the cases, be ordered to run concurrently.

5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter.

6. The first question, that arises for consideration, is as to whether, the provisions of Section 482 read with Section 427 Cr.P.C., can be invoked to seek direction for concurrent running of sentence, awarded to the accused, in two separate trial, for separate offences. In the instant case, no prayer was made either before the trial Court or before the Appellate Court, while passing the judgement of conviction and sentence, in the subsequent case relating to FIR No. 97 dated 24.03.01, under Section 15 of the Act, that the sentence be ordered to run concurrently with the previous sentence, awarded in another case. The judgements, in both the aforesaid cases have attained finality. Remedy having not been availed of before the trial Court or the Appellate Court, the provisions of Section 427 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked, to seek such a relief. Similar principle of law, was laid down in M.R. Kudva Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007(1) RCR (Criminal), 868 (SC). In view of the ratio of law, laid down, in M.R. Kudva’s case (supra), the instant petition is not maintainable.

7. The next question that arises, for consideration, is as to whether, the petitioner, was entitled, to the benefit of the provisions of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., which provides, that a person already undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or a term of imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. No doubt, sufficient period of sentence has already been undergone,