ORDER Shrivastava, J.--1. Applicant has preferred this application under section 482 of CrPC seeking direction to run the sentences concurrently passed in Sessions Trial No. 165/2007 decided on 11.3.2010 and Sessions Trial No. 1500220/2016 decided on 30.8.2019. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that in Sessions Trial No. 165/2007 vide judgment dated 11.3.2010 applicant-Hanumandas has been convicted for offences under sections 302/149, 148 and 324/149 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and one year RI each, respectively with default stipulation; and in Sessions Trial No. 1500220/2016 vide judgment dated 30.08.2019 he has been convicted for offences under sections 467 read with section 120-B, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced to ten years RI with fine of Rs.5000/-, three years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- and ten years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- respectively with default stipulation. 3. As learned counsel for the applicant prays that both the aforesaid sentences be directed to run concurrently, we do not think it apt to narrate the entire prosecution story to unnecessarily burden this order. 4. Section 427 of CrPC 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." On bare perusal of the above provision, it is clear that in first line of the section word 'imprisonment' has been used and thereafter in second line, word 'imprisonment or imprisonment for life' has been employed, which shows the intention behind the section that if any person is sentenced for any term of imprisonment and is undergoing the sentence, then in such case if on subsequent conviction the imprisonment is imposed, which may be of any term or of 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 subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. It transpires that no specific term of imprisonment is the condition precedent for applying section 427 of CrPC for subsequent imprisonment or imprisonment for life. 5. However, sub-section (1) of section 427 CrPC says that subsequent imprisonment or imprisonment for life will commence only after completion of previous sentence unless the Court directs to run both the sentences concurrently, but as per sub-section (2) it is specifically provided that where any person who is already undergoing the sentence for imprisonment of 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. That means, under sub-section (2) of section 427 of CrPC, the intention behind the section is very clear that if a person who is already sentenced for imprisonment of life, on subsequent conviction if he is sentenced to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the latter sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. This provision is apparently based on the principle of natural justice as if a person is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life and if on subsequent conviction sentence is imposed of imprisonment or imprisonment for life, absence of specific direction with regard to running of sentences concurrently will cause ambiguity as previous sentence is imprisonment for life. 6. This provision is apparently based on the principle of natural justice as if a person is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life and if on subsequent conviction sentence is imposed of imprisonment or imprisonment for life, absence of specific direction with regard to running of sentences concurrently will cause ambiguity as previous sentence is imprisonment for life. 6. Thus, bare perusal of section 427 of CrPC shows that subsection (1) of section 427 comes into effect if the Court specifically orders to run the sentences concurrently but sub-section (2) of section 427 activates automatically when the situation mentioned in sub-section (2) comes into existence. 7. In the present case, vide judgment dated 11.3.2010 the applicant has been convicted in Sessions Trial No.165/2007 for offences under sections 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with default stipulation and thereafter vide judgment dated 30.8.2019 in Sessions Trial No. 1500220/2016 he has been convicted for offences under sections 467 read with section 120-B, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced to ten years RI three years RI and ten years RI respectively with default stipulation, therefore, the provisions of section 427 (2) of CrPC will be attracted. 8. Resultantly, the petition filed under section 482 CrPC is hereby allowed. In the light of sub-section (2) of section 427 of CrPC, the sentences passed in Sessions Trial No. 165/2007 (decided on 11.3.2010) and Sessions Trial No. 1500220/2016 (decided on 30.8.2019) shall run concurrently. However the stipulation with regard to deposit of fine amount shall remain intact. ..................