Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) This reference is before us to adjudicate the following question: - "WHETHER, the High Court exercising powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., invoke Sec. 427 Cr.P.C. and order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently."
(2.) While making reference of the question to Larger Bench, the learned Single Bench observed as under: - "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Kudva Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [ : 2007 R.Cr.D. 236 (SC)] held that the High Court cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. To order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently under Sec. 427 Cr.P.C. It was also held that power under Sec. 427 Cr.P.C. can only be exercised by the Court, while exercising jurisdiction, as Appellate Court or revisional Court. Relying upon judgment of M.R. Kudva [supra] a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jang Singh Vs. State of Punjab, decided on 18.10.2007, reported as : 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 323, held that the power to make sentences concurrent under Sec. 427 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by the Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. A Single Bench of this Court [Hon'ble Mr. Justice Atul Kumar Jain] in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3014/2013, decided on 03.09.2013, relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pyari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, : 2003 Cr.L.J. 4599 (Raj.) and in M.R. Kudva [supra] also held as under: - "It has been admitted by the learned Advocate for the accused -petitioner in this Court that in all the four cases appeals of accused -petitioner Rocky have either been dismissed or he has not appealed against the judgment of the trial Court. In such a case benefit of concurrent sentences under the provisions of Sec. 427 Cr.P.C. cannot be ordered by this Court at this stage even with the help of Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. looking to the specific mandate of law propounded in the cases of M.R. Kudva [By Supreme Court] and Pyari Devi [Division Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court (supra)]."
(3.) On citing a view different taken in eight other cases by different Single Benches of this Court, learned Single Bench considered it appropriate to have opinion of Larger Bench.;