K. N. Seth, J. :- The basic question involved in the applications referred to this Bench are :

1. Whether it is open to the Judge who decided an appeal to pass an order under Section 397(1), Code of Criminal Procedure after he has delivered the judgment or he will be debarred from doing so because the order will amount to an alteration of the sentence already imposed ?

2. Whether it would be competent for the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure to direct that the sentence of a subsequent conviction to imprisonment shall run concurrently with the previous sentence if the stage for exercise of the discretion conferred under Section 397(1) of the Code is over ?

3. The circumstances in which the sentence on a subsequent conviction should be made to run concurrently with the previous sentence ?

2. The Mulaim Singh's case it appears that in Sessions Trial No. 149 of 1966 he was convicted under Sections 399, 402, 147, 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under various counts. The sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. His appeal was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 8-10-1969. Mulaim Singh was also prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 1966 and was convicted under Section 395, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. An appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 9-10-1969. On March 2, 1971, an application was made in the appeal arising out of Sessions Trial No. 127 of 1966 praying that the sentences awarded in the two trials and upheld in the appeals therefrom may be made concurrent under the provisions of Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Sukh Ram was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1968 and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 395, I.P.C., by an order dated 14-12-1968. His appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 1969) was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 11-2-1971. Sukh Ram was also convicted in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1968 and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 395/397, I.P.C., by an order dated 11-6-1969. He did not prefer any appeal against his conviction and sentence. On 11-1-1974 an application was made under Section 561-A read with Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 1969 praying that the sentence awarded in Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 1969 may run concurrently with the sentence awarded in Sessions Trid No. 113 of 1968.

4. It was urged on behalf of the applicants in the first place that this Court was competent to make the two sentences run concurrently under Section 397(1) of the Code and reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Ulfat v. State, 1967 All WR (HC) 757 = 1970 Cri LJ 767.

5. The relevant part of Section 397 of the Code provides :-

"When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence."

6. The legislative intent obviously appears to be that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is subsequently convicted and sentenced for another offence the sentence awarded under the subsequent conviction shall not commence till after the expiry of the sentence which he is already undergoing. The general rule is that a sentence commences to run from the time it is imposed but section 397(1) engrafts an exception to this general rule in the case of a person who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment. However, a discretion is given to the Court to direct that