ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed to pass an order to run the sentences concurrently passed in the judgment dated 07.11.2013 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 327 of 2007 by this Court and the judgment dated 24.01.2007 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 573 of 2005 by the Division Bench of this Court. 2. The petitioner who is involved in a case in S.C. No. 18 of 2005 was convicted under Sections 386 and 392 of IPC and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently by a judgment dated 22.03.2015 in S.C. No. 18 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No. I), Coimbatore. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner in Crl. Appeal No. 327 of 2007, this Court has modified the said judgment to effect that: (i) the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court under Section 392 IPC is hereby set aside. (ii) the conviction and sentence under Section 386 of IPC is hereby set aside and the appellant is convicted for offence under Section 385 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. (iii) since the appellant had already undergone the period of sentence, the jail authorities are directed to set free the appellant/accused, if he was not required in any other case. The petitioner has paid the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- and he has not preferred any appeal against the judgment dated 07.11.2013 in Crl. Appeal No. 327 of 2007. 3. The petitioner who is also involved in a case in S.C. No. 303 of 2004 was convicted under Sections 148, 302, 302 read with 149 and 324 IPC besides under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each carrying a default sentence by a judgment dated 23.06.2005 in S.C. No. 303 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. In the Appeal preferred by the petitioner in Crl. 10,000/- each carrying a default sentence by a judgment dated 23.06.2005 in S.C. No. 303 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. In the Appeal preferred by the petitioner in Crl. Appeal No. 573 of 2005, this Court modified the said judgment to the effect that: (i) the conviction of the petitioner/A-3 under Section 324 of IPC is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. (ii) the rest of the judgment dated 23.06.2005 in respect of the convicted accused under other sections are sustained. The petitioner paid the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- and he has not preferred any appeal against the judgment dated 24.01.2007 in Crl. Appeal No. 573 of 2005. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for a direction to run the sentences concurrently in the said two cases. 5. In this connection a Division Bench of this Court in K. Arasan and Others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Inspector of Police and Others, CDJ 2012 MHC 5335, has held that under 427 Cr.P.C. a discretion may be given to the subsequent convicting Court to consider and order the sentences to run concurrently with the previous sentence awarded to the same accused. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: 12. (1)............... (2)............... A cursory reading of the above said provision makes it crystal clear that as per the said Section, a direction may be given for a sentence awarded in the subsequent case to run concurrently with the previous sentence. There may be a situation that the subsequent convicting Court was not appraised about the existence of the previous sentence and as such, the said Court convicting the same Accused in the latter or subsequent case, may not be in a position to consider the relief to be given to the said Accused by invoking the provision under Section 427, Cr.P.C. It is for the concerned Accused to bring it to the notice of the previous conviction and sentence to the subsequent convicting court by invoking the provision under Section 427, Cr.P.C. It is needless to state that as per the provision under Section 427, Cr.P.C. a discretion is given to the subsequent convicting Court to consider and order the sentences to run concurrently with the previous sentence awarded to the same Accused. In the event of the Accused not raising the plea either before the original Court, namely, Trial Court or before the Appellate Court invoking the provision under Section 427, Cr.P.C. due to inadvertence or under other circumstances, the Accused cannot be left at lurch without any remedy. 13.0. It is pertinent to refer to the following decisions rendered by the other High Courts in respect of the issue involved in this matter. 13.1. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. Venkateswarlu vs. State of A.P. 1987 Cri. L.J. 1621 has held as here under:- “10.........The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction suo motu or in exercise of its inherent power under S. 482, can direct the sentences to run concurrently as provided under S. 427, Cr.P.C. even though the convictions and sentences that have been passed by the Additional Sessions Judges of different Sessions Divisions have become final.” 6. In view of the above order of the Division Bench, the present Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the sentences passed in Crl. Appeal No. 327 of 2007 dated 07.11.2013 by this Court and Crl. Appeal No. 573 of 2005 dated 24.01.2007 by the Division Bench of this Court are ordered to run concurrently.