- (1.) KAMLESHWAR Nath, J. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It appears that the applicant Prem Narain was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 395/397, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo seven years' R. I. In Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1985, State v. Prem Narain and another, on 13-8-1985, and subsequently he was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 2 months in Criminal Case No. 2886 of 1985-State v. Prem Narain, on 5-8-1986. The matter figured in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1986- Prem Narain v. State, in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Rae Bareli where it was argued on behalf of the appellant-applicant that the appellant had been in jail since more than 5 months and thus had already under gone the sentence. The learned Sessions Judge observed that in those circumstances the appeal was not pressed and was, there fore, dismissed as infructuous.
(2.) IT appears that there was some misconception in the mind of the counsel who addressed the Sessions Judge in appeal because the sentence which the applicant was under going, was the one for the offence under Section 395/397, I. P. C. and that execution of the sentence under Section 25iixb) of the Arm Act would operate only after the expiry of the period of the earlier punishment in view of Section 427 (1) of the Code of Criminal Proeedure. Be that as it may, it appears f Air that tae sentence of 2 months' R. 1. awarded for the offence under Section 25 (1 (b) of the Arms Act be made to run concurrently with the sentence awarded under Section 395/397, I. P. C. The application is allowed and it is directed that the sentence of 2 months' R. I. awarded to the applicant Prem Narain for the offence under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act shall run concurrently with effect from today with the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him for the offence undo; Section 395/397, I. P. C. in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1985, State v. Prem Narain and another .;