' Through this petition the petitioner has prayed for considering his convictions and sentences awarded to him in different criminal cases to run concurrently instead of consecutively. He has also prayed to include the period of his detention in F.I.R. No, 36 of 1992 in his convictions and sentences.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contend law bestows to an accused a privilege to consider, his entire convictions and sentences passed in different cases to run concurrently and the sentence in every cost should not be surpassed to life imprisonment due to the proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C. Even section 397, Cr.P.C. Also safeguard the basic and legal rights of an accused and any violation of the provisions of supra section would infringe the rights of accused which would cause great miscarriage of justice. It is not understandable that in case of any unspecified order the jail authority always consider the sentence of an accused to be consecutive. The petitioner was shut in jail from April 1993 to April, 1996 and thereafter since 22-7- 1998 to till now he is continuously behind the bars, therefore, in this way he has already served out whole of his sentences passed in different cases. The provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Also covers the period of his detention undergone by the petitioner in connection with case. F.I.R. No, 36 of 1992. Apart from that the petitioner has already suffered inexorable mental agony and anguish for such a long continuous incarceration which was deprecated by the superior courts of the country.
3. On the other hand the learned Additional Prosecutor-General and the learned Additional Advocate-General contend in unison that the petitioner can only avail benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Once pertaining to the single, transaction of criminal act despite the fact that he remained as under-trial prisoner in different cases and he could not patronize with the benefit of supra section in all the subsequent cases. According to the provisions of section 397, Cr.P.C. The convictions and sentences of the petitioner would run only on the expiry of his earlier sentence. The petitioner is carrying a stretched background of criminal history which shows that he is a criminal bent of mind so he does not deserve any concessional treatment from this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the relevant provisions of law invoked in this petition with their able assistance. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner remained behind the bars from April, 1993 to April, 1996 and thereafter he was again put into confinement on 27-7-1998 and since then he is under lock-up. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner if the detention of the petitioner is commutated in aggregate then he has already served out his entire sentences of imprisonment passed in all the criminal cases detailed in paragraph No, 1 of the instant writ petition. The pivotal question revolved around this matter is that whether this Court has jurisdiction to pass an order for considering the sentences passed against the petitioners in different cases to run concurrently or not. To meet out this proposition we minutely peruse the provisions of section 397, Cr.P.C. Wherein the procedure to observe sentences by an accused person in different cases has been provided. An unadorned reading of the section shows that an order regarding running of the sentences of an accused either consecutively or concurrently should be passed at the time of deciding the case or deciding the appeal and if for any reason or their to some inadvertent mistake the same is not passed, the matter could be settled by invoking the jurisdiction of High Court. To resolve the controversy which is subject-matter of this writ petition we have also carefully undergone the provision of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 35, Cr.P.C. Wherein a categorical mandatory proviso imposed that in no way the sentences should not exceed for a longer period of fourteen years. Thus, in the light of above said provisions of law considering the sentences of the petitioner to run consecutive would not serve the interest of just rather the same would be contrary to the law discussed above.
5. The other point of ponder to be discussed here is that the petitioner has also prayed for considering the period of detention which he had undergone in connection with case F.I.R. No, 36 of 1992 because according to the petitioner that respondent No, 2 did not consider the period till 1-5- 2000. In this context we have gone through the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Wherein a mandatory stipulation has been put upon the court passing the sentence on an accused person to include the period of his detention which he had served before earning his conviction. Thus, it shall be in the fitness of thing if the period undergone by the petitioner before conclusion of trial in case F.I.R. No, 36 of 1992 shall also be considered in stricto sensu.
7. For the discussion made above this writ petition is accepted and the sentences passed against the petitioner in different cases mentioned and detailed in Paragraph No, 1 of the instant writ petition is ordered B. To run concurrently. Respondent No, 2 is also directed to consider the period of detention undergone by the petitioner in connection with case F.I.R. No, 36 of 1992 as prayed for through this writ petition. He is further directed after commutating the period of the petitioner, to run concurrently, proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of in these terms.