Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—The three letters addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court are treated as writ petitions. Precisely, the issue involved in these petitions is whether a person, who has been convicted and sentenced in several cases, would be entitled for concurrent undergoing of all such sentences? To seek necessary assistance this Court appointed Shri K.R. Bhati as Amicus Curiae. He shall entitled for the remuneration as per the applicable provisions. 2. The facts pertaining to the sentences awarded to the petitioners are as under : (1) Subhash : (i) In Criminal Case No. 13/2006, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 380 and 457 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for (1) one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and (2) three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 5.9.2006. An appeal preferred by him against he conviction and sentence has already been rejected by the appellate Court. (ii) In Criminal Case No. 574/1998, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 379 and 447 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for (1) two years rigorous imprisonment, and (2) two years rigorous imprisonment by learned Magistrate, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 16.1.2006. An appeal against the conviction and sentence has already been decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar Camp Suratgarh while reducing the sentence passed by the learned Court below for the offence under Section 379 as one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment instead of two years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 447 reducing the sentence as one month's simple imprisonment instead of two years rigorous imprisonment. (iii) In Criminal Case No. 240/2006, he was convicted for the offence under Section 394/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 5.3.2008. (iv) In Criminal Case No. 346/2002 he was convicted for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 Indian Penal code and sentenced for (1) three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 5.3.2008. (iv) In Criminal Case No. 346/2002 he was convicted for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 Indian Penal code and sentenced for (1) three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment, and (2) three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months simple imprisonment by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra vide judgment dated 8.4.2008. (v) In Sessions Case No. 19/2006 he was convicted for the offences under Sections 460, 397 and 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for (1) seven years rigorous imprisonment, (2) life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, and (3) death sentence and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra vide judgment dated 22.12.2008. An appeal against the conviction and sentence has already been decided by this Court while reducing the sentence as life imprisonment instead of death sentence. (2) Lali @ Anil : (i) In Criminal Case No. 518/2004, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 380 and 457 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for (1) three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and (2) five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 28.3.2006. An appeal against the conviction and sentence has already been rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh. (ii) In Criminal Case No. 181/2004, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 457, 380/511 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for (1) three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment, and (2) two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment by learned Judicial Magistrate, Fist Class, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 10.1.2008. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment, and (2) two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment by learned Judicial Magistrate, Fist Class, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 10.1.2008. Presently he is serving the sentence of this case. (iii) In Criminal Case No. 519/2004, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for (1) three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment, and (2) three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment by learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 27.2.2008. An appeal against the conviction and sentence has already been rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh Camp Head Quarter Surtagarh. (iv) In Criminal Case No. 240/2006, he was convicted for the offence under Section 394/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 5.3.2008. (v) In Sessions Case No. 138/2006, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 460, 302 and 397 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for (1) ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, (2) life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, and (3) seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 8.5.2008. (vi) In Criminal Case No. 208/2006, he was convicted for the offence under Section 3/25 (1-B) of Arms Act and sentenced for two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 12.5.2009. (vi) In Criminal Case No. 208/2006, he was convicted for the offence under Section 3/25 (1-B) of Arms Act and sentenced for two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 12.5.2009. (3) Veenu @ Vinod : (i) In Criminal Case No. 518/2005, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 380 and 457 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for (1) three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and (2) five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 28.8.2006. An appeal against the conviction and sentence has already been rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh Head Quarter Suratgarh. (ii) In Criminal Case No. 380/2004, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 380 and 457 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for (1) one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment, and (2) two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh vide judgment dated 4.10.2007. An appeal against the conviction and sentence has already been rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh Head Quarter Suratgarh. (iii) In Sessions Case No. 138/2006, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 460, 302, 397 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for (1) ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, (2) life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, and (3) Seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 8.5.2008. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the cases where maximum punishment for imprisonment is given, the other minor sentences should have to be concurrent and not consecutive. 4. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the cases where maximum punishment for imprisonment is given, the other minor sentences should have to be concurrent and not consecutive. 4. While opposing the argument, learned Government Advocate has placed reliance upon the provision of Section 427 Cr.P.C. and submitted that they are quite clear and in view of those the subsequent sentence will not run concurrently but consequently, if no direction otherwise is given by the Court. 5. Heard learned counsels. 6. The provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as under : "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 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." 7. While examining scope of the provisions of Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr., reported in (1988) 4 SCC 183 , held as under : "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 he 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. Whether it should be concurrent or consecutive? 10. The basic rule of thumb over the years has been he 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." 8. In the same case it was also held hat the enormity of the crime committed by the accused is relevant for measuring the sentence, but the maximum sentence awarded in one case against the same accused is not irrelevant for consideration while giving the consecutive sentence in the second case although it is grave. Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that "the Court must 'recognize, learn to control and exclude' many diverse data. It is a balancing act and tortuous process t ensure reasoned sentence, in consecutive sentences, in particular, the Court cannot afford to be blind to imprisonment which the accused is already undergoing." 9. The scope of Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure in quite details is also considered by the Apex Court in Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr., reported in (1991) 4 SCC 304 , holding therein that "sub-section (1) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. provides for the situation when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or life imprisonment. In other words, sub-section (1) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. deals with an offender who while undergoing sentence for a fixed term is subsequently convicted to imprisonment for a fixed term or for life. In such a situation, the first sentence, being for a fixed term, expires on a definite date which is known when the subsequent conviction is made. Sub-section (1) says that in such a situation, the date of expiry of the first sentence which the offender is undergoing being known, ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commerce at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the Court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence. Obviously, in cases covered by sub-section (1) where the sentence is for a fixed term, the subsequent sentence can be consecutive unless directed to run concurrently. Obviously, in cases covered by sub-section (1) where the sentence is for a fixed term, the subsequent sentence can be consecutive unless directed to run concurrently. Sub-section (2), on the other hand, provides for an offence "already undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life" who is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or for life. It is well settled since the decision of this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse and reiterated in Maru Ram that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the life of the offender unless the remaining sentence is commuted or remitted by he appropriate authority. This being so at the stage of sentencing by the court on a subsequent conviction, the earlier sentence of imprisonment for life must be understood in this manner and, therefore, there can be no question of a subsequent sentence of imprisonment for a term or for life running consecutively which is the general rule laid down in sub-section (1) of Section 427." 10. In view of the judgments above, the resultant position emerges is that if, in a same transaction two different offences are committed and the accused is sentenced separately for each sentence, then the legitimate and proper course is to have concurrent sentences. In such circumstances consecutive undergoing of sentence is wrong. In other words, if the crime is one course but involving several offences, then the sentences awarded for different offences should be undertaken in one stroke and those should be concurrent. However, if the sentences awarded pertain to separate transaction, then the sentences have to be undertaken consecutively, if not otherwise ordered by the Court. The exception to this is only in the case where the other sentences awarded are subsequent to the life term sentence already awarded. Meaning thereby, that if the convict is already having a sentence of life term in his account, then the sentence awarded subsequent shall run concurrent. 11. The case of the petitioners is required to be examined in view of the legal position discussed above. 12. Petitioner Subhash suffered first sentence on 5.9.2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 447 Indian Penal Code. The second, third and fourth sentences were awarded to him on 16.1.2006, 5.3.2008 and 8.4.2008. Subsequent thereto vide judgment dated 22.12.2008 capital sentence was awarded to him but that was altered by the sentence of life term. 12. Petitioner Subhash suffered first sentence on 5.9.2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 447 Indian Penal Code. The second, third and fourth sentences were awarded to him on 16.1.2006, 5.3.2008 and 8.4.2008. Subsequent thereto vide judgment dated 22.12.2008 capital sentence was awarded to him but that was altered by the sentence of life term. As such the life term imprisonment is subsequent to all the other sentences awarded to him. This petitioner, therefore, is not entitled for undergoing concurrent sentences as prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. 13. Petitioner Lali @ Anil suffered life term imprisonment by judgment dated 8.5.2008 and all other sentences except in Criminal Case No. 2008/2006 were awarded to him prior to 8.5.2008. As such the sentences given prior to 8.5.2008 cannot run concurrently with the sentence given vide judgment dated 8.5.2008. However, the sentence awarded in Criminal Case No. 2008/2006 is subsequent to the life term sentence awarded vide judgment dated 8.5.2008. Therefore, that will run concurrently with the sentence of life term. 14. So far as petitioner Veenu @ Vinod is concerned, life term sentence was awarded to him on 8.5.2008 and prior to that he suffered other sentences vide judgment dated 28.8.2006 and 4.10.2007. these sentences being previous to life term imprisonment cannot run concurrently with the sentence for life term imprisonment. 15 . As such, the writ petitions, preferred by Shri Subhash and Shri Veenu @ Vinod are having no merit and, therefore, are dismissed. The writ petition preferred by Shri Lali @ Anil deserves acceptance in part. The sentence awarded to petitioner Lali @ Anil vide judgment dated 12.5.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.2008/2006 shall run concurrently with the sentence of life term imprisonment awarded to him vide judgment dated 8.5.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 138/2006.