Judgment MOHD. YAMIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. for giving effect to the various sentences on conviction passed by competent court to run concurrently. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length. ( 3 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, it may be stated that the accused petitioner was convicted in the following cases :-1. Regular Criminal Case No. 448/88 (State v. Magan and another) convicted for offences punishable under Sec. 457/75 and 380/75 IPC) and sentenced as under vide judgment dated 17-11-95 :- u/s. 457/75 IPC : One year S. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. u/s. 380/75 IPC : One year S. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-2. Regular Criminal Case No. 199/91 (State v. Magan) convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 379 IPC vide judgment dated 2-12-95 and sentenced to undergo one year S. I. 3. Regular Criminal Case No. 200/91 (State v. Magan) convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 379 IPC vide judgment dated 2-12-95 and sentenced to undergo one year S. I. 4. Regular Criminal Case No. 202/91 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 379 IPC vide judgment dated 20-11-95 and sentenced to undego one year S. I. 5. Regular Criminal Case No. 207/91 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 379 IPC vide judgment dated 2-12-95 and sentenced to undergo one year S. I. 6. Regular Criminal Case No. 201/91 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 379 IPC vide judgment dated 27-11-95 and sentenced to undergo six months S. I. 7. Regular Criminal Case No. 619/95 (State v. Magan and another) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457/75 and 380/75 vide judgment dated 27-11-95 and sentenced as under :- u/s. 457/75 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. u/s. 380/75 : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. 8. Regular Criminal Case No. 608/95 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 vide judgment dated 15-11-95 and sentenced as under :- u/s. 457 IPC : Six months S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. u/s. 380 IPC : Six months S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. 9. 500/ -. 8. Regular Criminal Case No. 608/95 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 vide judgment dated 15-11-95 and sentenced as under :- u/s. 457 IPC : Six months S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. u/s. 380 IPC : Six months S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. 9. Regular Criminal Case No. 609/95 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 vide judgment dated 15-11-95 and sentenced as under :- u/s. 457 IPC : Six months S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. u/s. 380 IPC : Six months S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. 10. Regular Criminal Case No. 614/95 (State Magan) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC vide judgment dated 2-12-95 and sentenced as under :- u/s. 457 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. u/s. 380 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. 11. Regular Criminal Case NO. 615/95 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC vide judgment dated 2-12-95 and sentenced as under :- u/s. 457 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. u/s. 380 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. 12. Regular Criminal Case No. 616/95 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offences punishable under Section 379 IPC vide judgment dated 2-12-95 and sentenced to undergo one years S. I. 13. Regular Criminal Case No. 617/95 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 vide judgment dated 2-12-95 and sentenced as under :- u/s. 457 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. u/s. 380 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. 14. Regular Criminal Case No. 618/95 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457/75 and 380/75 vide judgment dated 18-11-95 and sentenced as under :- u/s. 457/75 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. u/s. 380/75 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. 15. 300/ -. 14. Regular Criminal Case No. 618/95 (State v. Magan) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457/75 and 380/75 vide judgment dated 18-11-95 and sentenced as under :- u/s. 457/75 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. u/s. 380/75 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. 15. Regular Criminal Case No. 628/95 (208/91) (State v. Magan) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC vide judgment dated 2-12-95 and sentenced as under :- u/s. 457 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. u/s. 380 IPC : One years S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. ( 4 ) IN all these cases the sentences on conviction were passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mount Abu. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner the term of all these sentences comes to 13 years and six months. The petitioner is a young boy of 25 years of age and whatever recoveries were made from him are of such articles which are of daily use. The petitioner had fairly and frankly confessed his guilt in the cases under the belief that Lok Adalat would treat him with clemency. According to Sec. 427 Cr. P. C. the sentences passed in different cases have to run consecutively unless the Court specifically gives a direction to run them concurrently. No such specific direction was given by the trial magistrate and, therefore, the sentences have to run consecutively. This Court in Mohan Lal alias Hanuman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 0 Crlr 241 and Bachana Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 RCC 306 has given such benefits. In Bachanarams case (supra) it has been held that in use to inherent powers of the High Court, such a direction can be given. In this case, Judicial Magistrate Pipar City had passed various sentences in four cases and the maximum sentence in case No. 704/80 was the sentence of three years which was reduced to one years R. I. in appeal. In all the four cases the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. So the petitioner was released after undergoing a sentence of four years. In Mohanlals case (supra) sentences were ordered to run concurrently in seven cases. In all the four cases the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. So the petitioner was released after undergoing a sentence of four years. In Mohanlals case (supra) sentences were ordered to run concurrently in seven cases. ( 6 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for this benefit because the cases were not of petty thefts. Case No. 199/91 relates to the theft of cycle while case no. 200/91 relates to theft of tape recorder and speaker and seven cassettes from a Maruti car. Case No. 202/91 relates to theft of tape recorder and speaker of a car while case No. 207/91 relates to theft of cycle. Again case No. 201/91 relates to theft of tape recorder and speaker from a car while case No. 619/95 relates to theft of cash and silver lamps belonging to a temple. Case No. 614/95 related to theft of a tape recorder while case No. 615/95 related to theft of cassettes and tape recorder as well as clothes. Case No. 616/95 related to theft of cycle while case No. 617/95 related to theft of cash, camera, cassettes and pair of shoes. Again case No. 628/95 related to theft of tape recorder and clock. In some cases, I find from the judgment that the details of goods, theft of which was committed by the petitioner, are not available. ( 7 ) IN my view the petitioner deserves sympathy but the misplaced sympathy gives wrong signals to the society. Mount Abu is such a place of tourist importance in Rajasthan where tourists from all over India come and stay in different hotels and lodges. The tourists stay for a short period and if they are robbed during that period, the whole charm of tourism goes away. The petitioner is of course of 25 years of age but he should be made to undergo sentences by which he may realise that he had committed various thefts in unusual way. ( 8 ) LOOKING to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves sympathy and the cases should be clubbed in following manner in which the sentences shall run concurrently. ( 8 ) LOOKING to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves sympathy and the cases should be clubbed in following manner in which the sentences shall run concurrently. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I order that the ends of justice require that the sentences passed in different cases mentioned in annexed tabular statement be made to run concurrently as stated in the table :- @@1759. htm@@ ( 10 ) THE misc. petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.