JUDGMENT 1. 1. This petition tinder Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioners Hardeva, Badnya and Sharvan @ Bucha who have been convicted for the offence u/s 411 Indian Penal Code in seven cases in joint trials along with others and have been sentenced to various terms of simple imprisonment and varying amount of fine and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for varying periods, for directing their substantive sentences in all the above seven cases to run concurrently. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the record as well as the cases cited at the bar and have also considered the facts and circumstances of all the cases. 3. In the case of (1) Mohan Lal @ Hanuman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1987 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 241 petitioner Mohan Lal was convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment in several cases and no orders for these sentences to run concurrently were passed in the judgments. The substantive sentences were to be undergone by him consecutively. As the total period of sentences awarded in all those cases came to be 17 years 6 months, he approached this court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for giving directions that the sentences passed against him in all those cases may be ordered to run concurrently. This Court relying upon the case of (2) Jeevan & Ors. Vs. State reported in 1970 WLN (Part 1) 449 and Division Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in (3) Janta Kumar Banerjee Vs. State reported in AIR 1955 Cal. 632 and (4) Cachna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1984 Raj. Cr.Cases 306 held that where several sentences are passed against the same person, such sentences should ordinarily run consecutively, i.e. one after the expiration of the other unless the Court directs that they should run concurrently. That section did not lay down that the order about the running of the sentences concurrently with the previous sentences must be made a part of the subsequent judgment. It can be made by the Court even after the subsequent judgment has been given. That section did not lay down that the order about the running of the sentences concurrently with the previous sentences must be made a part of the subsequent judgment. It can be made by the Court even after the subsequent judgment has been given. The court has observed that there is no specific provision in the Code to the contrary debarring the High Court to exercise its inherent powers u/s 561-A of the old Code which corresponds to Section 482 of the New Code. Therefore, in the aforesaid case the substantive sentences passed against petitioner Mohan Lal in three cases were ordered to run concurrently with the sentences passed in earlier three cases. 4. Section 427 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with cases of sentences on offenders already sentenced for another offence. It would be apposite and useful to extract the said section here, which reads as under : 427. Sentence on offencer already sentenced for another offence (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.' 5. From a bare perusal of the above provision, it is plain that when sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment for life is imposed upon a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment (but not imprisonment for life) such subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment already imposed and being undergone unless the court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence subject however, to the proviso given therein and the special provision made in sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Code in respect of convicts already undergoing life imprisonment. 6. 6. It is apparent from the above section that the court may direct subsequent sentences shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. But such a direction may be given by the court after taking into consideration the facts of the cases while passing the subsequent sentences. 7. Thus, following the law laid down in the aforesaid authority and taking into consideration the facts of the cases in hand against the petitioners as also the quantum of copulated sentences passed against them in all these cases, I deem it just and reasonable to allow this petition. 8. Consequently, this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and it is directed that the substantive sentences imposed upon them in last four cases mentioned in para 1 of this petition namely : Criminal Case No.23/77/01 decided on 29.11.2002, Criminal Case No.23/49/01 decided on 22.1.2003, Criminal Case No.23/222/01 decided on 29.1.2003, Criminal Case No.23/48/01 decided on 29.1.2003 shall run concurrently with the substantive sentences imposed upon them in first four cases namely : Criminal Case No. 63/01 decided on 8.7.2002, Criminal Case No.67/01 decided on 9.7.2002, Criminal Case No. 155/01 decided on 10.7.2002 and Criminal Case No.50/01 decided on 11.7.2002. However, the sentences imposed upon them in default of payment of fine in all these cases shall remain intact and shall be undergone by them separately if the fines are not deposited. The sentences so modified shall be given effect to by the concerned court and the jail Authorities.Petition allowed. *******