Judgment :- Bannurmath, J. (This criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. by the Advocate for the petitioner praying to consider the appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.1499/069 on the file of the Munsiff & JMFC., Kushalanagar on 4.12.1996 or pass an order to club both the sentence passed in cases S.C.No. 79/1995 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore on 31.7.1998 and in S.C.No. 43/00 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Madikeri on 11.7.2002 to order to undergo imprisonment passed in both the cases concurrently.) This Criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned single Judge. 2. Even though we do not find any question of law to be decided by the Division Bench on reference, we find from the order of reference by the learned Single Judge, dated 10.8.2007 that as the subject matter on earlier occasion in an appeal was dealt by the Division Bench, possibly in order to avoid conflicting decisions, the learned Single Judge has referred the matter to the Division Bench. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused/petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. At the outset, it is to be noted that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not only misconceived but also not maintainable. If one peruses the petition, we are not certain as to what relief the petitioner wants from this Court. In para-8 of the criminal petition, it is stated that, this petition is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned No.43/2000. However, in the prayer it is as follows: “a) Consider the appearance of the petitioner in C.C. No.1499/06 before the learned Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Kushalnagar on 4.12.1996 or b) Pass an order to club both the sentences passed in cases S.C. No.79/95 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kodagu and S.C. No.43/2000 and to order to undergo imprisonment passed in both the cases concurrently". 5. So far as the grievance of the petitioner as mentioned in para-8 against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge. 5. So far as the grievance of the petitioner as mentioned in para-8 against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge. Dated 11.7.2002 in S.C. No.43/2000 is concerned, admittedly as against the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner has already approached this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1575/2002 and by a judgment dated 1.3.2004, this Court has partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the accused/petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 366 and 376 of IPC., sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years for each of the offences. As such, since the judgment of the learned Sessions judge merges with the Judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1575/2002, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved; it was open for him to challenge the same before the Apex Court. Instead of doing the same, he has filed the present Criminal petition with the aforesaid grievance mentioned at para-8 of the petition, which in our view, is not maintainable. The petitioner cannot under the guise of exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C ask the Court to recall or reconsider its earlier order. 6. Even considering the prayers of the petitioner that the appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.1499/06 before JMFC Kushalnagar be taken as 4.12.1996 or clubbing of Session Case No.79/1995 and Session Case No.43/2000, we fail to understand that, how such prayer can be considered by this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, on detail reading of the petition and hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears, his grievance appears to be that, since there were two cases against the accused/petitioner ending in conviction, exercising jurisdiction under Section 427 Cr.P.C., the sentence in both the cases were required to be held as concurrent and not consecutive. It is to be noted that, infact after passing the judgment on 1.3.2004 in Criminal Appeal 1575/2002, an application was filed by petitioner in this regard and this court by the order, dated 21.6.2004 clarified this position in detail. It is to be noted that, so far as exercise of jurisdiction under Section 427 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the law is well settled. In the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain – Vs- asstt. Collector, Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad ( AIR 1988 SC 2143 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “9. It is to be noted that, so far as exercise of jurisdiction under Section 427 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the law is well settled. In the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain – Vs- asstt. Collector, Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad ( AIR 1988 SC 2143 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “9. The Section relates to administration of criminal justice and provides procedure for sentencing. The sentencing court is, therefore, required to consider and make an appropriate order as to how the sentence passed in the subsequent case is to run. Whether it should be concurrent or consecutive? 10. The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different”. (emphasis supplied) 7. In the present case, the petitioner is found guilty of the offences punishable under section 366 and 376 of IPC. Both in S.C. No.79/1995 and S.C. No.43/2000. Both facts and circumstances and complaint, etc., are different. The only common factor is the accused. As the accused is found guilty in two different cases, not connected in any way, in our view, the normal rule is that when a person is already undergoing sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to another imprisonment, such imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced. The exception is “unless the Court directs that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence”. In this regard, in our view, the Court before exercising the jurisdiction under Section 427 Cr.P.C is required to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of both cases against the accused while deciding whether the sentences are to be consecutive or concurrent. On considering the repeated offences of the accused against when several cases were filed for alluring young girls, committing rape on them and then selling them to brothel, we find what this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 427 Cr.P.C. 8. Considering the matter from any angle, we do not find any merit in the petition, petition is rejected.