- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. Heard Sri V. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE applicant Munna son of Mohan Singh, resident of Garhi Jahan Singh, P. S. Shamshabad, District Agra has been convicted in three separate trials, in which maximum sentence has been passed for a prison term of five years. THE applicant is in jail since 12-3-1992. It is prayed that the order of sentence passed in the three Session Trials be made concurrent and since the applicant has already undergone a sentence of more than five years, the Jail Authorities be directed to release the applicant forthwith. The applicant was tried in Session Trial No. 25 of 1993 by Sri C. P. Sisodia with Additional Sessions Judge, Agra under Sections 363/366 and 376, I. PC, Case Crime No. 63 of 1902, P. S. Chhatta, District Agra. After convicting the applicant of the offences charged against him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 363, I. P. C. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-and in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months; to three year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 366, I. P. C. and to pay find of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, to one years imprisonment and to a prison terms of five years under Section 376, I. P. C. and to pay-fine of Rs. 1500/- and in default thereof to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 years. The applicant was tried by the same Additional Sessions Judge in another Session Trial No. 24/1993 " (Case Crime No. 58/1992) and by order dated 28-10-1994, convicted and sentenced the applicant under Section 363, I. P. C. for a prison term of two years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, to undergo six months' imprisonment and under Section 366, I. P. C, to three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay-fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof one year's imprisonment. The applicant faced the third trial in Session Trial Number 349 of 1992 under Section 376, I. P. C. before Sri Ajai Govind Lal, IXth Additional Sessions Judge who convicted and sentenced the applicant on 21-11-1994 under Section 376, I. P. C. to a prison term of five years and to pay-fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, to one year and three months' imprisonment. In view of the orders of sentence passed in the aforesaid three trials, the applicant has to remain in jail, at least for a period of 13 years as the sentence of imprisonment are to run consecutively. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the entire amount of fine has been deposited by the applicant in the concerned Courts and since the applicant has been in jail throughout w. e. f. 12-3-1992, he could not file any appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. It was urged that this Court, in exercise of inherent powers, may make the sentences passed in the three trials to run concurrently so that after the expiry of the period of five years reckoned from 12-3-1992, the applicant may secure his release from jail.
(3.) THE general rule is that a sentence commences to run from the time of its being passed. Section 424, Cr. P. C. however, creates an exception in the case of persons already undergoing imprisonment and postpones operation of the subsequent sentences until after the expiry of the previous sentence. Where the Court dealing with subsequent cases, does not pass an order that the sentence should run concurrently with the previous sentence, the law takes its course and the sentences are to run consecutively. In the instant case, as said above, no order has been passed in the subsequent two trials by the trial Court that the sentences passed in the said trials would run concurrently with the previous sentences, with the result, the orders of sentences passed in the subsequent two trials shall run consecutively. Now the question is whether this Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can make a sentence passed in the three different cases to run concurrently or not. There are series of decisions in which it has been held that the inherent power cannot be invoked to make sentences run concurrently. The view has been expressed that the discretionary power under Section 427 (1), Cr. P. C. to direct that the sentences of imprisonment on the subsequent conviction shall run concurrently with the sentence the convict was already undergoing is to be exercised at the lime of awarding subsequent sentences but not afterwards. In this connection, a reference may be made to AIR 1965 Patna 178 - Mahabir Beldar v. State, 1975 Cr. L. J. A. S. Naidu v. State of M. P. and AIR 1978, Delhi 138 (F. B.) Gopal Das v. State. The gamut of all these rulings is that the High Court in its exercise of inherent power, at the instance of a party, who has a right to appeal or revision, but has not availed of himself of that right, cannot pass an order directing that a sentence of imprisonment awarded to such person on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment when he is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment on an earlier conviction shall run concurrently with such previous sentences,;