M. Jeyapaul, J. - (1.) THE petition is filed by petitioner Mahender Singh through jail praying basically for awarding concurrent sentence in three different cases.
(2.) SH . Kanwal Goyal, Advocate was appointed from the panel of Legal Services Authority to prosecute the petition filed by the petitioner through jail. Learned counsel appointed by me ably assisted me by citing decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Full Bench of this Court to the effect that a plea for running concurrent sentences in different cases cannot be made invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(3.) IN M.R. Kudva vs. State of A.P., : AIR 2007 SC 568, it has been held as follows: - 20. However, in this case the provision of Section 427 of the Code was not invoked in the original cases or in the appeals. A separate application was filed before the High Court after the special leave petitions were dismissed. Such an application, in our opinion, was not maintainable. The High Court could not have exercised its inherent jurisdiction in a case of this nature as it had not exercised such jurisdiction while passing the judgments in appeal. Section 482 of the Code was, therefore, not an appropriate remedy having regard to the fact that neither the Trial Judge, nor the High Court while passing the judgments of conviction and sentence indicated that the sentences run concurrently or Section 427 would be attracted. The said provision, therefore, could not be applied in a separate and independent proceeding by the High Court. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.;