JUDGMENT 1. - Three persons, namely, Mahesh Ramesh and Munna Lal have been convicted and sentenced in three different cases and have been awarded separate terms of imprisonment as well as fine. This petition has been moved by them from Jail with a prayer that the substantive sentence in the three different cases be directed to run concurrently. 2. Under Section 427 Cr. P. C. ordinarily person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, when sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life has to undergo the second sentence after the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentence, but the court may direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 3. In the present case it has been contended that the accused petitioners were last conviction, by this court by the order dated 9-2-1987 and their sentence was enhanced. Mahesh was sentenced for imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Ramesh and Munna Lal were sentenced to imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. While enhancing the sentence from 6 years to as stated above this court took into consideration the antisocial crime which the petitioners had committed in conducting eye operations wherein a large number of persons became blind and eye camp was turned into a hall of terror. The persons performing the operations were not trained persons but imposters. This was done not once but on a number of occasions by holding different eye camps. In all 35 persons became blind in the three camps. These persons were made to pay money to the culprits for taking away their eyes. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances, that it is to be seen whether this court should exercise its powers of ordering sentence to run concurrently when accused is convicted in different offences on the different occasions. 4. In (1) Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan. (1917 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 241) , a poor young boy was convicted in 7 different cases of theft and total sentence when added came to 17 years and 6 months. Considering the facts and circumstances the sentence in three different casts were ordered to run consecutively while in the other 7 cases, it was made concurrently with the three cases. Similarly in (2) Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (1982 Cr. Considering the facts and circumstances the sentence in three different casts were ordered to run consecutively while in the other 7 cases, it was made concurrently with the three cases. Similarly in (2) Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (1982 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 361) conviction was in 7 cases of offences under sections 457 and 380 IPC. The total sentence awarded was to 7 years and the accused had undergone sentence for 2 years and 8 months. It was considered that it may be deemed that he had served out his complete sentence. 5. The facts of this case stand on their own footing. Petty theft by a poor boy or theft even by professional cannot be equated to the act of the petitioners in this case by which they trapped old, infirm and poor villagers, who in the hope of cure of a minor ailment of the eye lost their eye sight by being operated by quacks with blades and pins without following or knowing the elementary procedure for surgery. All this was done for making money. There could be a variety of methods for swindling money but to take away the eye sight of several persons is a barbaric act and a crime against society as a whole which cannot invoke sympathy of this court on the basis of judicial principles. 6. In my view this cannot be said to be a case wherein the sentence passed in subsequent cases may be ordered to run concurrently with the previous sentence. This petition is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******