The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to order concurrent sentences under Section 31 of the Cr.P.C lies with the trial court, and the high court cannot modify such orders in its revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Rusia, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 31(1) of the CRPC seeking direction with regard to sentences passed against the present petitioner under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC in Crime No.305/2015 to run concurrently.

The facts of the case in short are as under:-

1. One Gulab Singh Bhide, Jan Sikshak was posted at Government Middle School, Jeerabad . Shri A.S. Yadav, Principal lodged a report that on 19.09.2015 when he opened the Principal's room of the school found that computer, C.P.U. mouse, keyboard, cable spike, scanner (cannon) mike, inverter-2, battery, tabular, printer and old monitor are missing. According to them, in the preceding night, some unknown persons committed loot , on such reporting an FIR was registered at Crime No.305/2015 under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. of the Indian Penal Code against some unknown persons. The investigation was started, a spot map was prepared and on the basis of discrete information, the applicants Mahesh, Ajeet, Guddu @ Yashwant and Chhatar Singh were arrested. In their memorandum prepared under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, they have admitted the commission of a crime and on their disclosure, all the looted articles have been recovered. After the completion of the investigation, a charge- sheet was filed. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses. The applicants denied the charges and pleaded for trial. After appreciating the evidence on record the learned Court below has convicted the applicants under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C and sentenced 1-1 year with a fine of 10,000-10,000. Learned the Trial court did direct to run both sentences run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the above judgement the accused proffered criminal appeal and Criminal Revision and both have been dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge and this High Court respectively. The applicants did not make a prayer before superior courts to make sentences run concurrently.

2. Now applicants have approached this court by way of a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to sentences run concurrently otherwise they will have to undergo 2 years in jail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sher Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1989 MPLJ SCC 116 has considered the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in the applicability of Section 427 of the Cr.PC and held that the High Court has inherent powers to pass an appropriate order to meet the ends of justice same analogy can be applied to the applicability of Section 31 for these applicants, who are the first offender in this case. It is further submitted that at the time of the offence, they were aged about 21 and 22 years and if they are required to remain in jail for two years for conviction under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC their future may be spoilt. Therefore it is a fit case in which the High Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct for running both sentences concurrently.

4. Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer by submitting that under Section 31 the power lies with the trial Court to pass an order for running the sentences concurrently if no order has been passed then all sentences are liable to be run separately.

Heard and conclusion

5. Section 427 and Section 31 of the Cr.P.C deals with different fields . Section 427 Cr.P.C applies where the accused is convicted in two different trials by two different Courts but in Section 31 if the accused is convicted for two offences in one trial then the trial Court in the given facts and circumstances may direct to run the sentences concurrently.

6. After conviction by the trial Court, the applicants preferred an appeal and did not pray for the running of the sentence concurrently and the Appellate Court has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence as it is. Thereafter the revision was filed even at that stage no prayer was made. However, while