JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Gupta and the P.P. 2. This is a petition u/s 482, Cr.PC. against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran dated 14.2.84.. The petitioners were challaned in three cases. The numbers of the criminal cases are 59/82, 135/82 and 73/81. In all the three cases the accused-petitioners pleaded guilty and on that plea they were found guilty u/s 457/380 IPC. The learned Magistrate in each case sentenced each petitioner for the offence committed by him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- under each count. The learned Magistrate passed the judgment in all the three cases and the sentence awarded to the petitioners in each case was to run separately. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran did not agree with the contention of the petitioners that all the sentences in all cases be ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the appeal was dismissed and against that order the present petition has been preferred. 3. I have heard Mr. A. K. Gupta. It was argued by Mr. Gupta that according to Section 427, Cr.PC. when a person is already undergoing a sentence on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment shall commence at the expiry of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence awarded shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. In the present case, the petitioners contention is that they have been convicted on their plea of guilty and the sentences awarded to them are quite heavy. There fore, it is a fit case where the petitioners be ordered that the sentence awarded to them shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 4. The learned P. P. opposes this argument and states that the petitioners have committed similar offences. This shows that they are habitual offenders and no lenient view should be taken. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. Section 427, Cr PC. provides that a person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is on a subsequent imprisonment shall commence at the expiry of the imprisonment to which has been previously sentenced. In this very section, it has been mentioned that the Court, if thinks proper, may direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. provides that a person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is on a subsequent imprisonment shall commence at the expiry of the imprisonment to which has been previously sentenced. In this very section, it has been mentioned that the Court, if thinks proper, may direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct that the subsequent sentence awarded to the petitioners shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 6. Therefore, the petition u/s 482, Cr. PC, is accepted and is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners in subsequent cases No. 135/82 and 73/82 shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to them in the case No. 59/82.Petition allowed. *******