MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) This petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-petitioner Ajay @ Harendra, who has been convicted and sentenced in three different criminal cases in the following manner: JUDGEMENT_847_TLRAJ0_2012_1.html
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner contended that sentence awarded to petitioner in all three cases are not running concurrently while petitioner is serving it one by one therefore he has not been released in any case. As per Para no.1 of the petition, petitioner has stated that he was arrested on 29.03.2009 in Sessions Case No.138/2009 and since then he is behind the bar, meaning thereby he has served out the sentence of three years, four months and eight days. Petitioner has now been required to undergo full term of sentence consecutively in each of these cases, which in effect would mean that despite there being a common and overlapping period of confinement in all the three cases, he would have to separately undergo the sentence of seven years, 11 months.
(3.) Learned counsel citing provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure argued that even if sentences have been awarded in different trials by separate judgments, they are nevertheless required to run concurrently because it is the same person who is convicted. Learned counsel in support of this argument has cited judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal, 2009 5 SCC 238, division bench judgment of this Court in Vimal Mehra vs. State & Ors., 2008 3 WLC(Raj) 624, and single bench judgments of this Court in Achalchand Sancheti vs. State of Raj., 2010 3 WLC(Raj) 304, Mahavir Sharma vs. State,2007 WLC(Raj) 786, Hardeva & Ors. vs. State,2004 1 WLC(Raj) 295. and Mahavir Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan,2007 2 RajCriC 500 and Shishram @ Shisho Vs. State of Rajasthan,2011 CrLR 892.;