JUDGMENT B.A. Patil, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to pass an order that the sentence of life imprisonment passed by the FTC-I in S.C.No.438/2004, on 17.02.2005 and subsequently confirmed by this Court in Crl.A.No.1998/2005 by its order dated 25.03.2008 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 448 of IPC and the judgment passed by the FTC-IV in S.C.No.498/2005 on 07.04.2006 and it is confirmed by this Court in Crl.A.No.1682/2006 by its order dated 21.01.2010 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 397 read with Section 34 of IPC are imposed on the petitioner run concurrently with each other in the ends of justice. 2. This case has been posted before this Court with regard to the maintainability of the case. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner is given sufficient opportunity, has not appeared before the Court with regard to the submission of the maintainability. 3. I have heard Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. It is contended in the petition that the aforesaid petitioner is an accused in S.C.No.498/2005 and S.C.No.438/2004 and he has been convicted in both the cases for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 read with 34 of IPC and 302 and 448 of IPC respectively. It is further contended that in view of the provisions of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C. that the imprisonment has to run concurrently with such previous sentence and the trial Court as well as this Court have not exercised the power under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. to run the sentence concurrently. It is further contended that the petitioner/accused No.1 has been convicted and was sentenced for life imprisonment. Under such circumstances, the provisions of 427(2) of Cr.P.C. ought to have been invoked. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition to pass an order that sentence shall run concurrently. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the provisions of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C. are not applicable that too when the appellant has already preferred an appeal and the matter come up before the Division Bench and they have already confirmed the conviction and sentence. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the provisions of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C. are not applicable that too when the appellant has already preferred an appeal and the matter come up before the Division Bench and they have already confirmed the conviction and sentence. It is his further submission that Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not an appropriate remedy to the accused to apply the provisions of Section 427 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, the petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Hence, the learned HCGP prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned HCGP for the State and perused the records. 7. I have gone through the provisions of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C. which reads as under: "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." 8. On going through the said provisions of law when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life if accused is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. In this regard, there is no dispute but as the facts speaks that earlier, the petitioner/accused No.1 has been tried in S.C.No. 438/2004 on the file of the FTC-I, Bangalore. The learned trial Judge by order dated 17.02.2005, convicted the accused and sentenced him for life imprisonment. Against the said judgment, the petitioner/appellant has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.1998/2005 before this Court. On considering the merits of the case, this Court has dismissed the said appeal on 25.03.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner has also been tried in S.C.No.498/2005 on the file of the FTC-VI, Bangalore. The learned trial Judge, by order dated 07.04.2006, convicted the accused and sentenced him for life imprisonment. Against the said judgment, the petitioner/appellant has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.1682/2006 before this Court and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 21.01.2010. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C., the sentence ought to have been passed to run concurrently. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 427(2) of Cr.P.C., the sentence ought to have been passed to run concurrently. It is his further submission that now by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr,.P.C. the said order has to be passed. It is well settled preposition of law that when the provisions of Section 427 of Cr.P.C. is not invoked in the original cases or in the appeals, a separate application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and it is not an appropriate remedy, that too, when the accused has been tried before the trial Court convicted in both the case and same have been confirmed by this Court in two different appeals. 10. This preposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Kudva Vs. State of A.P, (2007) 2 SCC 772 at para-12 , it is observed as under: "12. However, in this case the provision of Section 427 of the Code was not invoked in the original cases or in the appeals. A separate application was filed before the High Court after the special leave petitions were dismissed. Such an application, in our opinion, was not maintainable. The High Court could not have exercised its inherent jurisdiction in a case of this nature as it had not exercised such jurisdiction while passing the judgments in appeal. Section 482 of the Code was, therefore, not an appropriate remedy having regard to the fact that neither the trial Judge, nor the High Court while passing the judgments of conviction and sentence indicated that the sentences passed against the appellant in both the cases shall run concurrently or Section 427 would be attracted. The said provision, therefore, could not be applied in a separate and independent proceeding by the High Court. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed." 11. Taking into consideration of the said preposition of law the provision of Section 427 of Cr.P.C. has not been invoked in the original cases or in the appeals. A separate application was filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., that too after final adjudication of the appeal by this Court, under such circumstances, the application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable as the remedy is not available and is not an appropriate remedy. A separate application was filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., that too after final adjudication of the appeal by this Court, under such circumstances, the application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable as the remedy is not available and is not an appropriate remedy. 12. Be that as it may, when the Division Bench has already confirmed the order, then under such circumstances, this Court cannot sit over the judgment of divisional Court and the sentence which has been passed cannot be varied and changed. If the petitioner intends to prefer a petition, then he can file a special leave petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 13. By taking into consideration of the aforesaid preposition of law, I am of the considered view that, the petition filed under Section 482 read with 427(2) of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.