JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---These two petitioners are convicted for life imprisonment in Sessions Case No. 99 of 89 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. They preferred appeal against that order of conviction and sentence being Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 90. When, the appeal was rejected, the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by this Court as per the judgment dated 18-6-91. 2.Earlier the petitioners were prosecuted for offence punishable under section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. being the Sessions Case No. 14 of 84 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. The petitioner Shankar Digambar Chavan was convicted for offence punishable under section 304 Part (I) I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for three months while the petitioner No. 2 Sheshrao Nivratti Rathodkar was convicted for offence punishable under section 325 r.w. 34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for two months. They had filed Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84 against the order of conviction and sentence. They were released on bail on admission of the appeal. The said appeal was decided by this Court on 4-2-97. The appeal was rejected and the order of conviction and sentence were confirmed. 3.The petitioners have now prayed that by applying the provisions of section 427 of Cr.P.C. it be ordered that the sentences passed against the petitioners in these two separate matters should run concurrently. 4.Heard Shri Sabnis, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are undergoing the imprisonment for life as well as imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively for two different matters. If the sentences are not directed to run concurrently, the petitioners would suffer great hardship and they will be in jail for very long period. Therefore, by exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. the direction be issued that the sentences passed in these two different matters should run concurrently. If the sentences are not directed to run concurrently, the petitioners would suffer great hardship and they will be in jail for very long period. Therefore, by exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. the direction be issued that the sentences passed in these two different matters should run concurrently. Shri Sabnis, learned Counsel also has submitted that at the time of hearing of the Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84, the submission was made that the order to run the sentences concurrently be passed. So, at least now that submission be taken into consideration. 5.The learned Addl. P.P. Shri Chaudhari has pointed that the sentence for life imprisonment was passed in the matter subsequent to the sentence which was passed against the two accused for offences punishable under section 304 Part I and 325 of I.P.C. respectively and, therefore, petitioners cannot take advantage of sub-section (2) of section 427 of Cr.P.C. He also argued that when the Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84 was heard by this Court, no direction was issued that the sentence which was being passed in that matter should run concurrently with the sentences of life imprisonment which was passed in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 90. As the Court had not exercised this power while disposing of the Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84, now the Court has no jurisdiction either to review its own order or to modify its own order. The provisions of section 482 with respect to inherent powers of the High Court in Criminal Matters cannot be used against the specific provisions under section 427 of Cr.P.C. Section 427 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows : "427. (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life, shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence : Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence." It is made clear by sub-section (2) of section 427 of Cr.P.C. that when a person is undergoing imprisonment for life and he is convicted, subsequently, to imprisonment for a term or for imprisonment for life, then only the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently to the previous sentence. No doubt, when the Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84 was decided by this Court, the petitioners were undergoing the sentence for life. But, it must be noted that the sentence for life imprisonment was passed in Sessions Case No. 99 of 89. It was subsequent matter to the sentence for term passed against the two accused in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1984. Even if the Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84 is decided after the decision of the Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 90, it cannot be said that the sentence of life which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 90 was an earlier conviction and the sentence for a term awarded in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84 was subsequent conviction. 6.The petitioners were convicted for offences punishable under section 304 Part I and 325 of I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 14 of 84 for offence which had taken place on 12-4-1983. So, when the conviction was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84 that conviction related back the date of conviction on which the Sessions Case No. 14 of 84 was decided. So, it was the earlier conviction. The sentence of imprisonment for life was passed in Sessions Case No. 99 of 89 for offence which had taken place when the accused were on bail because of admission of their appeal in the earlier matter. Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 427 of Cr. P.C. cannot be made applicable to the present case. 7.In this respect, we would like to rely on the observations made by the Apex Court in the matter of (Maru Ram v. Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 2147. Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 427 of Cr. P.C. cannot be made applicable to the present case. 7.In this respect, we would like to rely on the observations made by the Apex Court in the matter of (Maru Ram v. Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 2147. Their Lordships have observed in para No. 56, --- "When a person is convicted in appeal, it follows that the Appellate Court has exercised its power in the place of the original Court and the guilt, conviction and sentence must be substituted for and shall have retroactive effect from the date of judgment of the trial Court. The appellate conviction must relate back to the date of the trial Court's verdict, and substitute it." Hence, it is to be held that the order of sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84 relates back to the date of trial Court's judgment i.e. 16th November, 1984. So, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 427 of Cr.P.C. cannot be made applicable. 8.So far as the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 427 of Cr.P.C. are concerned, as no such directions were issued that sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84 should run concurrently, now this Court cannot review that order. Furthermore, section 427(1) Cr.P.C., will come into play only with respect to subsequent sentence. Here, it is already pointed out that the order of sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 84 cannot be a subsequent sentence to the order of sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 90. The sentence of life imprisonment given in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 90 cannot be considered as previous conviction and previous sentence. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the benefit of sub-section (1) of section 427 of Cr.P.C. be given even on this ground, cannot be considered. 9.In the result, Criminal Application is rejected and disposed of. Application rejected. *****