JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The grievance of the accused-petitioner is that he has been convicted in Sessions Case No. 17/1987 (79/1987) by the Additional Sessions Judge. No. 1. Bharatpur vide order dated 25th November, 1987, for an offence under Section 392, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of tine to undergo further three month's imprisonment. In another case No. 790/1987, the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 3/15 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven days' imprisonment. But, the two sentences have not been made to run concurrently. 3. Shri Biri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the cases arose out of the same incident and, as such, the sentences in both the cases should have been made to run concurrently. 4. There appears to be no dispute between the accused-petitioner and the prosecution that the two cases arose from the same incident. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner places reliance on (1) Mohan Lal alias Hanuman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan, 1987 (1) WLN 657 and (2) Jiwan & Ors. v. The State, 1970 WLN 449 . In Jiwan & Ors. v. The State (Supra), the facts were that the three petitioners were sentenced separately and the courts convicting them have not invoked the provisions of Sec 397 (1 ), Cr. P. C with the consequence that the petitioners were required to undergo sentences for at least 12 years. It was in those circumstances that this Court, in that case, held that for the ends of justice all the sentences passed in three different cases should be ordered to run concurrently. In that case, the Court invoked its inherent power to pass the said order. 5. In Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (Supra), the accused was sentenced in three cases. The Court observed that for these convictions the petitioner, who is a young lad of 20 years, will have to remain in jail for 17.1 years and placed reliance or Jiwan & Ors. 5. In Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (Supra), the accused was sentenced in three cases. The Court observed that for these convictions the petitioner, who is a young lad of 20 years, will have to remain in jail for 17.1 years and placed reliance or Jiwan & Ors. Vs The State (Supra) and power under Section 482, Cr P.C. was exercised It was also observed by this Court in Jiwan Singh's case that under Section 427 of the New Code, where several sentences are passed against the same persons such sentences should ordinarily run consecutively i.e. one after the expiration of the other unless the court directs that they should run con- currently. It was also observed that this section decidedly lays down that the order about the running of the sentences concurrently with the previous sentences must be made a part of the consequence it judgment. It can be made by the court even after the subsequent judgment has been given. Section 427, Cr. P.C. provides for exercising discretion at the time the court records subsequent conviction and inflicts punishment on the accused. However, in cases where the offences committed by an accused person, giving rise to separate trial resulting in conviction are distinct and are not intimately connected with and having different genesis the court may consider it more appropriate that the sentences awarded on subsequent conviction be allowed to run its normal course. The discretionary power is to be exercised on the merits of the case at the time of awarding subsequent sentences In the instant case, booth the cases arose out of the same incident and in view of the proposition of law laid down by this Court in Mohan Lal 'case (Supra), to which lagree, it would he appropriate and in the interest of justice to order that the sentences awarded to the accused-petitioner in the aforesaid cases should run concurrently. 6. In the premises aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that the sentences awarded against the accused-petitioner in the aforesaid cases should run concurrently. 7. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.Petition Disposed of. *******