JUDGMENT 1. - In M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 568 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when provisions of Section 427, Cr.P.C. were neither invoked in original case not in appeal then High Court could not have given the benefit of concurrent sentence by help of application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.In Pyari Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 Cri.L.J. 4599 (Raj.) , it was held by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court that when the Trial Court had directed that the sentences shall run consecutively and the order has attained finality then the High Court in exercise of inherent powers cannot direct that the sentences shall run concurrently. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in this case had interpreted Sections 31 and 427. Cr.P.C. accordingly.In 1999 Cri.L.J. 3809 A.P. (DB) also the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh has held that when earlier sentence has already been undergone then such sentence cannot be made concurrent with the sentences which are going to be passed in future. 2. Looking to the law laid down in above three rulings, the following ruling submitted by the petitioner Sameer (convict prisoner) does not help his arguments:- (1) Ajay @ Harendra v. State of Rajasthan, 2013(1) WLC (Raj.) 542 ; (2) Pankaj Soni v. State of Raj. & Anr., 2010(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 738 ; (3) State of Punjab v. Madan Lai, 2009 (Suppl) Cr.L.R. 60 ; and (4) Shishram @ Shishu v. State, 2011(1) WLC 583 . 3. In the above rulings, it was held that benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. and benefit of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. should be given to the accused-persons only as per the provisions of law. In the rulings referred by the petitioner, rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) and Hon'ble the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (supra) have not been referred or discussed. 4. The petitioner-Sonu @ Prince (convict Prisoner), in this case wants an over of concurrent sentences but he admits that on 17.7.2012 he was convicted and sentenced in Criminal Case No. 2584/2011 and Criminal Case No. 1490/2011 by Addl. 4. The petitioner-Sonu @ Prince (convict Prisoner), in this case wants an over of concurrent sentences but he admits that on 17.7.2012 he was convicted and sentenced in Criminal Case No. 2584/2011 and Criminal Case No. 1490/2011 by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jaipur and he admits that in both the cases his conviction and sentence under Section 4/25 read with Section 31 of Arms Act was upheld by the Appellate Court also and now no appeal is pending in the two cases as per him. If this is so, he should not be entitled to any benefit of concurrent sentence at this belated stage but if his appeals are pending r before the concerned Sessions Judge, then certainly under this order, the I concerned Sessions Judge may give him benefit of concurrent sentences before I the final determination of the appeals, if pending before him.The misc. petition is hereby disposed of accordingly. *******