R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Two letters have been received from Sukhdev Singh. These letters have been treated as letter petitions by this Court and have been registered as two separate petitions. Since the same prayer has been made in both these petitions, the petitions are being decided by this common order.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 307, 397, 392, 342, 120B and Section 3/25 Arms Act in three separate trials, and although he has been sentenced to different terms of imprisonment in each of the trial, in case his sentence are not directed to run concurrently, he will have to serve more than 28 years' of rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, he has prayed before this Court that this sentences may be directed to run concurrently rather than consecutively. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Vimal Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 789 and on the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahemdabad & Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 183 .
(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that according to Section 427 Cr.P.C. in case a person has been convicted and sentenced in one trial and in cases he were to be convicted and sentenced in another trial, subsequently, the sentences shall run consecutively and not concurrently. the Bar.;