JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - The Petitioner was convicted by the learned SDJM, Hindol on 9.4.2003 in G.R. Case Nos. 154 of 1995, 34 of 1996 and 66 of 1996. In G.R. Case No. 154 of 1995 he was sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default RI for 6 months for the offence u/s 458, Indian Penal Code and RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default RI for 6 months for the offence u/s 380, Indian Penal Code. In G.R. Case No. 34 of 1996 the Petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default RI for 6 months for the offence u/s 457, Indian Penal Code and RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default RI for 6 months, for the offence u/s 394, Indian Penal Code. In G.R. Case No. 66 of 1996 the Petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default RI for 6 months for offence u/s 457, Indian Penal Code and RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to RI for 6 months for offence u/s 394, Indian Penal Code. In each of the above noted cases learned SDJM directed that the sentences would run consecutively. The Petitioner has challenged the said direction in the present revision. 2. Mr. R. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appointed by the Legal Services Authority for the Petitioner submits that the conviction in all the above noted cases having been passed on the same day and the offences of the cases being similar in nature, the convicting Court in the absence of any special reason should not have directed the sentences to run consecutively. He submits that the Petitioner, who is a young man will have to undergo substantive jail sentence for 15 years and default sentence for 3 years if the sentences are allowed to run consecutively and in the process his entire life and future will be ruined. He further submits that this Court has jurisdiction to modify the direction given by the convicting Court and so for the sake of securing justice, direction may be issued to run the sentences in all the three cases concurrently. 3. Learned Addl. He further submits that this Court has jurisdiction to modify the direction given by the convicting Court and so for the sake of securing justice, direction may be issued to run the sentences in all the three cases concurrently. 3. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand, submits that there is no legal provision empowering the convicting Court or the High Court to direct the sentences passed in different cases to run concurrently. 4. From the rival contentions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State, the following points emerge for consideration: 1. Whether there is any legal provision for sentences passed in different offences in different cases to run concurrently; and 2. Whether the facts and circumstances of the present case necessitate any direction for this Court to run the sentences passed against the Petitioner in three different cases concurrently. 5. Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks about sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. Section 31(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reads as follows: When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments, prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently. So, according to the provision of Section 31(1) if a person is convicted at one trial for two or more offences, then such imprisonment is to commence one after the expiration of the other unless the Court directs that the punishment shall run concurrently. The proviso to Section 31 says that in case the sentences run consecutively, then the maximum length of such imprisonment should not exceed 14 years or twice the amount of punishment which the convicting Court is competent to inflict for a single offence. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Speaks about sentence on an offender already sentenced for another offence. The said Section reads thus: 427. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Speaks about sentence on an offender already sentenced for another offence. The said Section reads thus: 427. Sentence on offender 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 u/s 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. This Section postulates that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which the convict has been previously sentenced unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence would run concurrently with the previous sentence. The exception is, however, provided in Sub-section (2) of the said Section, which says that 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 automatically run concurrently with such previous sentence. 6. So, both Section 31 and Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Extend discretion to the convicting Court to allow sentences passed in different offences in a case or sentences passed in different cases of similar nature to run concurrently in appropriate circumstances. In the case of Mullapudi Venkanna Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh the Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that the High Court has also in its appellate jurisdiction power to direct separate sentences of separate trials to run concurrently to secure the ends of justice. 7. In support of his contention, Mr. Mohanty drew my attention to the case of Basudeb Pradhan Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh the Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that the High Court has also in its appellate jurisdiction power to direct separate sentences of separate trials to run concurrently to secure the ends of justice. 7. In support of his contention, Mr. Mohanty drew my attention to the case of Basudeb Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa wherein it was observed that inherent power vested in the Court is obviously intended for maintaining administration of the criminal justice within the jurisdiction of the Court with a view to ensuring that ultimate justice is done. It was also observed that superior Courts have power to modulate the sentences passed in separate cases against the same convict to secure the ends of justice. Mr. Mohanty also pleaded that the offences alleged in all the three G.R. Cases being almost similar in nature and conviction in those cases having been passed on the same day, the sentences should be allowed to run concurrently to save the Petitioner from undue harassment. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on Ammavasai and Anr. v. Inspector of Police Vallyanur and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3544 . In that case the Appellant was convicted in 4 to 5 cases, all u/s 395, Indian Penal Code within a space of 3 to 5 months and in each case the sentence was 7 years RI Considering the fact that by running the sentences consecutively the convict would have to remain 28 to 35 years in jail, the Apex Court observed that sentences passed in several cases of similar nature within a short span of time against a convict can be allowed to run concurrently or can be reduced/modulated to secure the ends of justice and reduced the total period of sentence to 14 years RI. This judicial pronouncement indicates that the Courts exercising appellate jurisdiction can modulate the sentences passed against a convict in several cases to secure the ends of justice and in doing so, such Court may also direct the sentences passed in different cases of similar nature to run concurrently. 8. Now coming back to the case in hand, it is seen that the Petitioner has been convicted in three G.R. cases and the total sentences, if allowed to run consecutively, comes to 15 to 18 years. 8. Now coming back to the case in hand, it is seen that the Petitioner has been convicted in three G.R. cases and the total sentences, if allowed to run consecutively, comes to 15 to 18 years. The offences involved in all the cases are almost similar in nature and the sentences were passed on the same day. The Petitioner is a young man and in the prime of his life. Keeping him behind the bars for 15 to 18 years will ruin his future. The State and the society will also not make any substantial gain by such prolonged confinement of the Petitioner. At the same time, if all the sentences of the three G.R. Cases are allowed to run concurrently, the period of substantive jail sentence would come down to imprisonment for 3 years and the default sentence to one and half years (as the default sentences are not allowed to run concurrently). Such period of detention will also be inadequate under the available circumstances. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the Petitioner and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Ammavasi's case (supra) I feel that substantive jail sentence of 5 years and default sentence of 11/2 years (in total 61/2 years) will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, and I direct accordingly. 10. In the result, the revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed