- (1.) PETITIONER-REMESH Sawant, Convict No. C-1867, detained in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik has preferred the present petition with a prayer that the sentences awarded to him in three different cases arising out of three different crime numbers be directed to run concurrently.
(2.) FROM a perusal of the aforesaid application and the affidavit filed by Dr. B. B. Wagh, Jailor Group No. II, attached to Nasik Road Central Prison, it transpires that the petitioner was tried and convicted in the below mentioned three cases :- 1)Case arising out of Case No. 73 of 1985 arising out of in Crime No. 17 of 84 of police station Nasik registered under section 395 I. P. C. In the aforesaid case, vide Judgment dated 13-12-1985, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik convicted and sentenced the petitioner to seven years R. I. under section 395 I. P. C. ( 2)In Case No. 85 of 1985 arising out of crime No. 38 of 1984 of police station, Trimbakeshwar, the petitioner was convicted under section 395 read with 397 I. P. C. and awarded 7 years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 3 months R. I. by the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 2nd February, 1988. (3)Case No. 11 of 1986, which has been wrongfully mentioned in the application of the petitioner as Case No. 85 of 1986, which is the outcome of Crime No. 52 of 1984 of police station, Igatpuri, District Nasik. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner was convicted under section 395 read with section 397 I. P. C. and under section 342 I. P. C by the learned Sessions Judge, Nasik vide Order dated 2nd February, 1988. He was awarded 7 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo sentence of 3 months, under section 395 I. P. C. , read with section 397 I. P. C. and to three months R. I. under section 342 I. P. C Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Prayer in the present application is that the sentences of the petitioner in the aforesaid three cases be directed to run concurrently.
(3.) WE have heard Mr. Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lambay learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned Counsel for petitioner has drawn our attention to the provisions contained in section 427 of Cr. P. C. wherein, it is incorporated that this Court has the discretion to order sentences in different cases to run concurrently. He submits that in view of the aforesaid provision, the sentences of the petitioner in the aforesaid three cases be directed by us to run concurrently. We regret that we cannot subscribe to Mr. Kulkarnis contention because all the three aforesaid cases do not arise out of the same transaction. They arise out of different transactions, different crime numbers pertain to different police stations and they have been decided by separate judgments. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to our notice decision of the Apex Court reported in A. I. R. 1988, Supreme Court 2143, (Mohammed Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector, Customs) In para 10 of the aforesaid case, Their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed as follows :-ara 10 : "the basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so called single transaction rule or concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different. " It is evident from the observations of Their Lordships of the Apex Court that in cases which do not arise from a single transaction but, arise out of different transactions, it would not be just and proper to order sentences to run concurrently. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision, with which we are in respectful agreement and also keeping in mind that all the three cases in which the petitioner has been convicted are cases under section 395 I. P. C. , which is a antisocial offence we do not think it expedient in the interests of justice to direct that the sentences of petitioner to run concurrently. For the reasons stated above, the present application is devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.;