C. P. SEN, A. C. J.

( 1 ) THE applicant who is undergoing sentences in two different case has sent a petition from jail to make the sentences passed in those two case to run concurrently by invoking inherent powers of this Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In view of the conflicting decisions us to whither the inherent powers can be invoked under S. 482 when there is a specific provision under S. 427 (1) of the Code, the learned single Judge has referred the following questions for decision by Full Bench :- (I) Whether the law laid down in A. S. Naidu's case (1975 Cri LJ 498) (Madh Pra), still holds good ? (ii) Whether the High Court can entertain application under S. 427, Cr. P. C. ? (a) from accused who, while undergoing sentence of imprisonment was sentenced on subsequent conviction to the imprisonment and whose appeal/revision against the subsequent sentence stood disposed of without any direction under S. 427. Cr. P. C. ? (b) from accused who, while undergoing sentence of imprisonment was sentenced on subsequent conviction to the imprisonment without any direction under S. 427 of the Code and dues not file appeal or revision against his subsequent sentence ?

( 2 ) THE applicant along with others was prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 21/84 decided on 12-4-1984 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Durg, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of two years under S. 148, IPC and under S. 307/149 he was sentenced for a term of 5 years. It does not appear that any appeal was preferred against the convictions and sentences. The applicant along with others was again prosecuted in S. T. No. 45/84 decided on 25-9-1984 by the II Additional Sessions Judge. Durg, and so far as the applicant is concerned, he was convicted under S. 395, IPC and sentenced to R. l. for 5 years. He preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1331/85 which was decided by this Court on 10-4-1984 maintaining his conviction but reducing his sentence from 5 yeas to 4 years R. I. It appears that neither the prosecution nor the applicant referred to the earlier conviction nor the trial Court invoked its power under S. 427 (1) of the Code. The present application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by the applicant from jail on 15-6-1987. The matter came to be heard by the learned single Judge who made the aforesaid reference by referring to the Commentary of Sarkar on Criminal Procedure Code, 5th Edition under S. 427 (1) at page 710, by referring to the various decisions of different High Courts that inherent powers cannot be invoked under s. 482 when there is a specific provision under S. 427 (1) and since the applications are frequently made in this court even long after dismissal of appeals or revisions against subsequent convictions, therefore, the question is of great public importance and it has to be decided by Full Bench.

( 3 ) SECTION 427 (1) provides as under :-"when a person already undergoing a sentenced 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. Therefore, under this Sub-Section when a person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment shall commence at the expiry of imprisonment for which he has been previously sentenced unless the court directs that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. So in the absence of a specific order by the court in the subsequent case, normally both the sentences are to run consecutively. It is also settled that power under this Sub-S. can be invoked in appeal or revision against the conviction and sentence. However, it may be mentioned that the Suprem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document