Concurrent sentences can only be granted if the offences arise from the same transaction; distinct offences do not qualify under S. 427 of CrPC.

1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. P. R. Abichandani, learned APP for the respondents. Having regard to the facts stated in this application, this application is taken up for final hearing today.

2. The petitioner convict Sarfuddim Suleman Fakir, who is undergoing different sentences including sentence of life imprisonment and who is lodged in Central Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad has, by forwarding this application to this Court through Dy. Supdt., Central Jail, Ahmedabad requested this Court to pass appropriate orders directing all the sentences to run concurrently in following two cases.

(1) Special Case No. 77 of 2001 : -

The present petitioner was accused No. 4. At the end of the trial, the learned Special Judge (Atro.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad, by rendering his judgment dated 24-10-2001 convicted the present petitioner (accused No. 4) along with the other co - accused. By that judgment, the present petitioner (accused No. 4) was convicted for the offences punishable under S.3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , S. 394 read with S.114 and S.120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC ") and for that offences, the present petitioner who was accused No. 4 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under S.3(i)(x) of the and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under S.394 read with S.114 of and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for an offence punishable under S.120(b) of . It be noted that by the said judgment, the present petitioner i.e. accused No. 4 was acquitted for other offences punishable under S.342, 307 and 506(2) of and also under S.25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. The learned Judge of the trial Court directed all the sentences to run concurrently.

3. Being aggrieved against and dis - satisfied the said judgment of the conviction and sentence, the present petitioner i.e. original accused No. 4 had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 958 of 2001 to this Court. That Criminal Appeal No. 958 of 2001 come to be dismissed by this Court (Coram : Y. B. Bhatt and J. R. Vora, JJ.) on 19-7-2002.(2) In Special Case No. 78 of 2001 : -The present petitioner was accused No.

4. At the end of the trial, the learned Special Judge (Atro.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad, by rendering his judgment on 24-10-2001 held the present petitioner i.e. accused No. 4 Guilty for the offences punishable under S.3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , S.376(2)(g), 342 read with S.114, 394, 324 read with S.114, S.506(2) read with S.114 of IPC and also under S.135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 . By the said judgment, the learned Special Judge (Atro.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad inflicted different sentences as follows : -S.3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 : -To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one month.S.376(2)(3) read with S.114 of . : -To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine,