Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Abdul Razak Alias Raja vs Superintendent, Central Prison, ... on 28 August, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991(3)ALT333, 1992CRILJ1261
ORDER
1. The petitioner was convicted in various cases for various offences by different Courts. Now he filed this petition praying this Court that the sentence of two year in C.C. Nos. 312 of 1989 and 424 of 1989 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, may be directed to run concurrently with the sentence in C.C. Nos. 92 of 1986 and 93 of 1986 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati.
2. In support of his plea the petitioner garnered support of a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in V. Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P., 1987 Cri LJ 1621. After referring to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Mulatin Singh v. State, 1974 Cri LJ 1397 wherein certain guidelines were laid down, Jayachandra Reddy J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench observed.
"The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction suo motu or in exercise of its inherent power under S. 482, can direct the sentence to run concurrently as provided under S. 427, Cr.P.C. even though the convictions and sentences that have been passed by the Additional Sessions Judges of different Sessions Division have become final."
Now the short question that falls for consideration is whether any interference is called for in the instant case.
3. The petitioner was convicted by the II Additional Munsif Magistrate. Tirupati in C.C. No. 92 of 1986 on 25-4-1989 for an offence under sections 411, I.P.C. and sentence to suffer R.I. for 2 years. In C.C. No. 93 of 1986 he was again convicted by the same Magistrate for another offence under section 411, IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I for 2 years. The learned Magistrate directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The petitioner was again convicted by the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No. 312 of 1989 on 15-6-1989 for an offence under sections 454 and 380, IPC and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years on each count which shall run concurrently along with C.C. No. 424 of 1989.
4. No doubt, as was already held by this Court in the decision cited supra, this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction suo motu or in exercise of its inherent power under section 482, Cr.P.C. can direct the sentences to run concurrently. But this power should be exercised sparingly and not in any arbitrary manner and the nature of the offence has also to be taken into consideration. It is needless to say that in the case of professional dacoits the Court has to exercise its extraordinary power sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases.
5. In this case, the petitioner is a hardened criminal and a habitual offender. He is habituated to commit offences in different parts of the State. He was convicted by two different Magistrates in different cases. Therefore, it is neither permissible nor desirable for this Court, while exercising its inherent powers, to allow such a concession. This Court while exercising its inherent powers must be very cautious in dealing with the cases of habitual offenders and any exercise of that power should not be an encouraging factor for hardened criminals to commit more offences. Therefore the request of the petitioner cannot be acceeded to.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
7. Petition dismissed.