- (1.) RULE. Mr. Kapur the learned A. P. P. waives service of rule for the State. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith.
(2.) THIS application is filed by the prisoner through jail for praying that as per order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge in different Courts and as per the sentences imposed against the applicant in each case, the prayer is made that all the substantive sentences be ordered to run concurrently. The advocate for the applicant has also furnished details about nine cases in which, after the trial, competent Court has convicted the applicant by imposing sentences of imprisonment as well as order of fine and also passed order that in default of non-payment of fine, the applicant has to undergo further imprisonment. As the application is received through Jail and as per order passed by this court, the legal aid was provided to the applicant and accordingly Ms. Suryawanshi was appointed to represent the applicant-accused and considering the prayer made in the application the learned A. P. P. was directed to get instructions in respect of prayers made by the applicant. Accordingly, Mr. Solanki, Jailar Group-II attached to Dhule Central Prison, Dhule, has filed detailed affidavit dated 20/4/2001 and copy of the said affidavit is duly served to Ms. Suryawanshi. During the hearing, Ms. Suryawanshi has while taking me through the application submitted that in view of order passed by the competent Court by convicting the applicant-accused in 9 different cases, the applicant has to remain in Jail by serving out the period of sentences awarded by the Court as per the order while disposing of each case and further that for default of payment of fine, the applicant has to undergo sentence imposed by the Court. He accordingly submitted that if the Court considers the request and passes the order that all sentences to run concurrently in all the cases, the applicant will come out of Jail early.
(3.) IT is the case of the respondent-jail authority that the involvement of the applicant was in 9 different cases and in each case, after filing the charge sheet, the competent Court has convicted the applicant-accused and also imposed sentence of imprisonment and sentence of fine and Court has also passed order that in default on account of non-payment of fine, the accused has to undergo further imprisonment as per the order. In view of the above, it will not be possible for this Court to entertain such prayer in view of the decision of the apex Court. IT is further found that even the copies of the judgment of each case were furnished to the applicant, the applicant has not challenged the same by preferring appeal. Considering the sentences imposed on the applicant, he has to undergo sentence of imprisonment upto 25/10/2008 and applicant has also to pay fine of Rs. 7000.00. If the applicant fails to deposit fine amount, then the applicant has to remain in Jail upto 5th October, 2010. In my view, this is not the matter where, this Court has to entertain prayer made in the application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Application dismissed.;