JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. filed by convict Phool Singh and Mishri praying that the sentences imposed upon petitioner Phool Singh in criminal case Nos. 260 of 1975, 261 of 1975, 263 of 1975, 278 of 1975, 96 of 1973 and 177 of 1973 be ordered to run concurrently. Similar request has been made for accused Mishri that the sentences awarded to him in Cr. Case No. 260 of 1975, 261 of 1975, 262 of 1975 and 263 of 1975 be ordered to run concurrently. 2. The application is not opposed by the State. 3. The question which needs determination is whether this court can in exercise of its inherent powers make the sentences awarded in the aforesaid cases to run concurrently ? Section 427 Cr P.C. provides that where several sentences are passed against the same person such sentences should ordinary run consecutively i.e one after the expiration of the other, unless the court convicting the accused directs that they should run concurrently. It does not lay down that the order about the running of the sentences concurrently with the previous sentences must form part of the subsequent judgment. Such an order can be made even after the subsequent judgment had been given. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that there is any specific provision in the Cr. Procedure Code, which bars this court to exercise its Inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P.C. 4. In Jeevana v. State reported in 1970 R.L.W. 230 , it was held that this court has the power to order that the sentences passed on different dates in respect of the different convictions of the accused should run concurrently. I respectfully agree with the above noted decision. 5. The accused Phool Singh was convicted in seven cases and was sentenced to different terms of imprisonment. If he is allowed to undergo the sentences awarded to him in different cases, then he will have to remain in jail for a period of seven and a half years and thus a considerable part of his life will have to be spent by him in jail. Similarly if accused Mishri is allowed to undergo the sentences awarded to him in all the four cases, then he will have to undergo imprisonment for a period of four and a half years. 6. Similarly if accused Mishri is allowed to undergo the sentences awarded to him in all the four cases, then he will have to undergo imprisonment for a period of four and a half years. 6. Looking to the nature of the accusation and the valuation of the, property involved in the case, in which they have been convicted, I consider it to be in the interest of justice to order that the sentences awarded to petitioners Phool Singh and Mishri in the following cases should run concurrently. Case No. Title Sec. Sentence Court Date of judgment Phool Singh:- 1. 260/75 State v. Mishri and others 380 457 IPC 6 months and a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count in default one month's imprisonment on each count Addl. Munsif and Judl. Mag. Deeg. 31-12-75 2. 261/75 State v. Phool Singh 380 457 IPC One year and six months and Rs. 250/- fine. In default 2 months imprisonment on each count. -do- 31-12-75 3. 263/75 State v. Phool Singh and Ors. -do- One year and six months and Rs. 100/- fine. In default one month's imprisonment on each count -do- 15-10-75 4. 278/75 State v. Phool Singh -do- 2 yrs. and Rs. 250/- fine, in defualt 2 months imprisonment on each count -do- -do- 5. 96/73 -do- -do- one year Munsif Mag. Bharatpur 30-7-76 6. 117/73 State v. Phool Singh -do- -do- -do- -do- Mishri:- 1. 260/75 State v. Mishri and Ors. -do- 6 months and Rs. 100/- fine. In default 1 month's imprisonment on each count Addl. Munsiff Mag. Deeg. 31-12-75 2. 261/75 State v. Mishri and Ors. 380 457 IPC 1 year's and 6 months Rs. 250/- fine, in default 2 months' imprisonment on each count -do- 3-12-75 3. 262/75 State v. Mishri and “ 2 years and Rs. 250/- fine In defualt 2 months -do- 15-10-75 others imprisonment on each count 4.293/95 State v. Phool Singh and Ors. “ 1 yr. and 6 months and Rs. 100/- fine In default 2 months imprisonment on each count -do- -do- I according allow the application and pass an order under section 482 Cr. P.C. directing the sentences awarded to the petitioners in the aforementioned cases to run concurrently.Application allowed. *******