JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the material available on record Brief facts to decide the present controversy are that petitioner Jagdish was tried by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bandikui in following six matters for charges under Section 420, 406 and 120-B IPC and was convicted and sentenced. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bandikui decided respective appeals vide judgment mentioned below:- u/s 420 IPC Three years' S.I. with fine of Rs.1,00,000; in default of thereof, to further undergo six months S.I. u/s 406 IPC Three years' S.I. u/s 120-B IPC Six months' S.I. 2. During hearing of appeals, an application Under Section 427 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner, but while deciding the appeals no order was passed thereon. Consequently a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was preferred before this court which was registered as S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.656/2016. Co-ordinate Bench of this court while deciding the revision vide order dated 23.5.2016 directed the learned Appellate Court to dispose of the application u/s 427 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner. Thereupon learned Appellate Court decided vide order dated 4.6.2016 the application under Section 427 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that the court can pass the order only u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and it does not have power, relying upon the judgment dated 19.01.2016 of this court passed in D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1912/2013 Arjun Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. The petitioner has submitted the instant revision against this order of the Appellate Court. 3. I have gone through Arjun Ram's case (supra). By this judgment, a reference has been decided on the question as to whether in exercise of power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court can invoke under Section 427 Cr.P.C. and ordered that sentence awarded in two different cases were to run concurrently. 4. 3. I have gone through Arjun Ram's case (supra). By this judgment, a reference has been decided on the question as to whether in exercise of power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court can invoke under Section 427 Cr.P.C. and ordered that sentence awarded in two different cases were to run concurrently. 4. After considering the law on the point and after wide discussion, it has been replied by the Court:- “We are of considered opinion that to meet the ends of justice and to rectify the gross error the powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised, if court arrives at a conclusion that the trial court, appellate court or the revisional court, as the case may be, failed in completing the circuit of justice while invoking/not invoking the discretion vested with it as per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure. The court while doing so must keep in mind all necessary ingredients and precedents which are to be taken into consideration to exercise the discretion as per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure.” 5. Mere perusal of judgment depicts that power under Section 427 Cr.P.C available to the trial, appellate and revisional court has not been questioned. Interpretation of the judgment, made by learned appellate court is quite strange. Section 427 Cr.P.C reads as follows:- “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 of 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.” 6. The provision clearly empowers the trial court to pass an appropriate order with regard to execution of the sentence. (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 provision clearly empowers the trial court to pass an appropriate order with regard to execution of the sentence. In absence of a specific order, the sentences passed against an accused in different cases are to be executed consecutively. As an appeal and revision are extension of trial, by way of implication, both appellate and revisional court are also empowered to pass an order under Section 427 Cr.P.C., if so desired. 7. In the instant matter the petitioner is to undergo the sentence passed against him in six cases. If an order with regard to concurrent execution of the sentence is not passed, he will have to languish behind the bar for about 18 years. Looking to the charges proved against the petitioner i.e. section 420, 406, 120-B IPC, it deems not proper to keep the petitioner behind bar for such a long term. Execution of sentence in consecutive manner will not going to serve any purpose of justice. 8. Therefore, the petition is allowed. It is directed that execution of the substantive sentences passed against the petitioner in the above said six cases shall be executed concurrently.