JUDGMENT : S.B. Shukre, J. 1. This writ petition seeks a relief for the petitioner in the nature of concurrent running of a sentence of imprisonment for a term awarded subsequently to the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed in a different case. 2. This petition has been filed through jail and, therefore, an advocate was appointed for espousing the cause of the petitioner as per the order passed on 22nd January, 2013. When this petition came up for hearing at admission stage on the last occasion, no advocate was present on behalf of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. for the State, however, was present. Considering the fact that the petitioner is undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment imposed in Sessions Case No.137 of 1997, at Yervada Central Jail, and as informed by learned A.P.P. for the State, the Government of Maharashtra has directed to release the petitioner after completion of 26 years of imprisonment including remission, it was thought that the petition needed urgent hearing. Learned A.P.P. for the State has also given his consent for hearing the petition finally at the stage of admission. This is how this petition has been heard finally at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for the State. 3. We have heard learned A.P.P. for the State and with the assistance of learned A.P.P., we have gone through the memo of the petition which is a handwritten one and all the documents placed on record including the letters of Superintendent of Yervada Central Prison. 4. It is seen from the petition as well as the letter of the Superintendent, Yervada Central Prison, Pune, dated 20th December, 2012 that the petitioner has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 394 of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.137 of 1997 on 30th September, 1998 and that in execution of this sentence, the petitioner has been lodged in Yervada Central Prison, Pune. It is further seen from this letter that the petitioner who was an accused in Sessions Case No.26 of 1997 arising out of Crime No.50 of 1996, Lanja Police Station, has been awarded sentence of five years of imprisonment together with fine for an offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code subsequently. This sentence was imposed on 1st January, 2001. This sentence was imposed on 1st January, 2001. The petitioner, however, has not been given the benefit of running of the subsequent sentence concurrently with the previous sentence of life imprisonment. 5. The facts noted above clearly show that the sentence of imprisonment for a period of five years awarded in Sessions Case No.26 of 1997 on 1st January, 2001 was upon conviction subsequent to the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner in Sessions Case No.137 of 1997 arising out of C.R. No.143 of 2008 of Pen Police Station. When the sentence of imprisonment for a term or life given in one case is subsequent to the sentence of life imprisonment given in another case, provisions of Section 427(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure come into operation. Section 427 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:- “Sec.427(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.” 6. The language of the section is clear and unambiguous. The section has been worded in imperative terms which is evident from the use of the expression, “the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence” and admits of no discretion or exception in the matter of directing the subsequent sentence to run concurrently. Learned A.P.P. for the State also graciously concedes this position. The Superintendent of Jail ought to have implemented the mandate of Section 427(2) and given its benefit to the petitioner without making him knock at the doors of this Court. The petitioner, however, had to come before this Court. That was absolutely unwarranted and avoidable. It has unnecessarily caused stress and inconvenience to the petitioner. Section 427 (2) casts a public duty upon the authority, in-charge of the physical custody of the convict, to apply it's provisions upon fulfillment of the conditions stated therein. Conversely, the section confers a right upon the convict to seek the benefit thereof whenever conditions stated therein are fulfilled. The Jail Superintendent, however, has ignored the import of Section 427(2) and we hope that whenever he comes across such cases, he will apply Section 427(2) on being satisfied that the conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled. Conversely, the section confers a right upon the convict to seek the benefit thereof whenever conditions stated therein are fulfilled. The Jail Superintendent, however, has ignored the import of Section 427(2) and we hope that whenever he comes across such cases, he will apply Section 427(2) on being satisfied that the conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled. Needless to say that the only condition that has to be fulfilled in such a case is that the convict should have been previously sentenced for a life imprisonment and should have been subsequently sentenced for a imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the petitioner herein ought to have been given the benefit of Section 427(2) and this could have been done by the Superintendent of Jail without any reference to the Court of law or without waiting for any specific order in this regard from the Court of law having regard to the imperative language of Section 427(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 8 In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the substantive sentence of imprisonment of five years imposed on the petitioner in Sessions Case No.26 of 1997 arising out of C.R.No.15 of 1996, Lanja Police Station, under Section 395 I.P.C. passed on 1st January, 2001 shall run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner in Sessions Case No.137 of 1997 arising out of C.R.No.143 of 2008, Pen Police Station under Section 302 and 394 I.P.C. on 30th September, 1998, in view of the provisions of Section 427(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 9 Rule is made absolute in the above terms.