JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - These two applications have been registered u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the 'Code of Criminal Procedure'), on the basis of two representations sent by the convict from the jail. 2. The applicant was convicted under Sections 366/376/506/342 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the 'I.P.C.') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years on each count under Sections 366 and 376 and R.I. for on year u/s 506 and for six months u/s 342, I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1994 by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Sunupur, by judgment dated 9th June, 1995. In Jail Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1995 filed against the aforesaid decision, while setting aside the conviction under Sections 366, 506 and 342, Indian Penal Code, the conviction u/s 376, I.P.C. was confirmed and the sentence of seven years R.I. was modified to three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- by judgment dated 30.1.1997 by the High Court. The Petitioner also faced a separate trial for a subsequent offence of similar nature and was convicted under Sections 342/506/366/376, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, one year, seven years and seven years respectively on each count by judgment dated 19.9.1995 passed in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1995. Against the aforesaid order of conviction, Jail Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 1995 was filed wherein while confirming the order of conviction, the sentence was reduced to R.I. for four years under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. by the High Court by judgment dated 9th December, 1997. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The two present petitions have been filed by the convicted person for a direction that the sentences in both the criminal appeals should be directed to run concurrently. 3. In view of the decisions reported in Basudeb Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa (1990) 3 OCR 246 B. Durga Rao v. State of Orissa, 72 (1991) CLT 247 Jadu alias Jadua Bhoi v. State of Orissa, (1995) 9 OCR 382 Akhaya Behera v. State of Orissa and 1997 (II) OLR 27 Radhasyam Mishra v. Republic of India there cannot be any doubt that in appropriate cases, in exercise of power under Sections 482, Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court can direct sentences passed in different trials to run concurrently. 4. 4. The question is whether such a course should be adopted in the present case. A perusal of the judgments in the two appeals namely, jail Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 1995 and Jail Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 1995 and the connected records, indicates the following undisputed facts: The offence which was the subject matter of Jail Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 1995 was committed on 8.5.1994. The victim was the sisterin-law (wife's sister) of the present Petitioner. While the Petitioner was on bail in the said case, the subsequent offence was committed against the very same person on 15.11.1994. Though in the two separate appeals the Petitioner had been sentenced to R.I. for seven years, the sentence was reduced to three years and four years respectively in the two appeals. In other words, if the sentences are not made concurrent, the Petitioner has to undergo R.I. for a total period of seven years. While the subsequent Jail Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 1995 was being heard, it was not noticed that the Petitioner had already been convicted of a similar offence committed against the very same victim. Similarly, while the earlier Jail Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 1995 was being heard it had not been brought to the notice that the accused had been convicted of a similar offence committed on a subsequent occasion. Obviously, if such facts would have been brought to the notice of the Court, possibly leniency would not have been shown in the matter of sentence. Be that as it may having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the offence had been committed on a subsequent occasion against the very same victim while the Petitioner was on bail in connection with the earlier case, any clemency shown at this stage in exercise of power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, would be inappropriate and would not be in the interest of justice. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the two applications are rejected. Final Result : Dismissed