Judgment : 1. The petitioner seeks a direction that the sentence imposed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode to undergo R.I for 7 years for the offence under Sections 394 read with 297 IPC by order dated 25.3.2004 in S.C. No. 172 of 2003 to run concurrently along with the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal in S.C. No. 111 of 2005 dated 24.1.2007 sentencing the petitioner to undergo RI for 5 years for the offence under Section 363 IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the petitioner stood convicted in two different cases, he was unable to get the benefit of the subsequent sentence running concurrently with the earlier sentence and therefore, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct both sentences to run concurrently. A reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in G. Rengerajan v. State by Inspector of Police, SPE/CID/CBI, Chennai (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1031. This Court find that the reproduction therein of the observations of the Honourable Bombay High Court in Sadashiv Chhokha Sable v. State of Maharashtra 1993 CrlLJ 1469 are quite appropriate (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1031 at p. 1034: “ 16. … We must notice that the learned Public Prosecutor for the State had contended that Section 427 Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the instant matter because the petitioner was not “ undergoing a sentence of imprisonment ” as contemplated under that provision, when subsequent sentence was awarded. According to him, unless the offender is physically in jail to suffer the sentence of imprisonment at the time of subsequent sentence. Section 427(1) cannot be pressed into service. In our view, such an approach to the provision would not be object oriented. Normal principle is that sentences should take effect immediately on conviction. Code of Criminal Procedure provides that where several sentences are passed, such sentences should run one after the other i.e. consecutively unless the Court directs otherwise i.e., Concurrently. A person sentenced to imprisonment must, for the purpose of Section 427, be deemed to be undergoing that sentence from the very moment the sentence is passed. The accused may be on bail or in custody in the earlier case at the time of passing of the subsequent sentence. A person sentenced to imprisonment must, for the purpose of Section 427, be deemed to be undergoing that sentence from the very moment the sentence is passed. The accused may be on bail or in custody in the earlier case at the time of passing of the subsequent sentence. There cannot be legislative intention to deny the benefit, of the provision even in a deserving case by virtue of the only fact that the convict is on bail or in custody or could not be taken within the portals of prison for some genuine reason. Literal construction on the terminology “ undergoing a sentence of imprisonment ” as suggested on behalf of the state would lead to absurd results specially where two separate sentences are awarded one after the other on one day in two different trials. Either the learned Judge would not exercise the discretion only because in the earlier case he had not gone inside the jail by that time or he will have to actually send the convict inside the jail for some time, and call him back immediately to pronounce judgment in the second case. We do not think such absurd and farcical situation was intended by the legislature”. 3. On the above considerations, this criminal original petition shall stand allowed. This Court directs that the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode to undergo R.I for 7 years for the offence under Sections 394 read with 297 IPC by judgment dated 25.3.2004 in S.C. No. 172 of 2003 to run concurrently along with the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal in S.C. No. 111 of 2005 dated 24.1.2007 sentencing the petitioner to undergo RI for 5 years for the offence under Section 363 IPC.