- (1.) By filing this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.7.2008 passed by the Jail Superintendent and further prayed that sentence of the accused petitioner in all the five cases be directed to run concurrently. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PP for the State. I have also perused the record as well as the case cited at the Bar and have also considered the facts and circumstances of the cases.
(2.) Before going into merits of the case the learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court to Section 427 Cr.P.C. which is reproduced as under: 427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence: (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directed that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, while undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commenced immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
(3.) He has drawn attention of the Court to the case of Hardeva and others vs. State of Rajasthan,2004 2 RCC 684 and submits that the present case is sequarely covered with the case of Hardeva and others .;