ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, appears through video conferencing. 2. This petition is filed seeking concurrent service of sentence rendered by the sentencing court in C.C.No.24983/2017, C.C.No.25693/2017 and C.C.No.25691/2017. But all these cases have been ended in conviction for offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC, 1860 and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 454 of IPC and undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC, which two sentences were to run concurrently. The same sentence has been imposed by the Trial Court in respect of each of the cases in C.C.No.24983/2017, C.C.No.25693/2017 and C.C.No.25691/2017, which amounts to a total of nine years. It is contended that this nine years service of sentence is not in accordance with certain provisions of the Cr.P.C. and even not in accordance with some judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by referring to Ramayana and also reformation of the convicted accused and also criminal justice delivery system. 3. Petitioner/accused has committed similar offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC thrice, and because of committing similar offences thrice, independent crime came to be registered by the police having jurisdiction to deal the matters in respect of which investigation was conducted and the I.O. laid the charge-sheet against the accused. The aforesaid three cases have been ended in conviction. 4. In the meanwhile of dictating this matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner said to be arraigned as accused and also convicted accused in the aforesaid three cases, has pleaded guilty. 5. Though the aforesaid three cases in respect of which the accused has pleaded guilty, ended in conviction for offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC, but it is relevant to refer to Section 375 of the Cr.P.C., which reads thus: “375. 5. Though the aforesaid three cases in respect of which the accused has pleaded guilty, ended in conviction for offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC, but it is relevant to refer to Section 375 of the Cr.P.C., which reads thus: “375. No appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty.--Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal,- (a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or (b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.” 6. This is an appeal provision under the Cr.P.C. But this petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking an order of the three sentences to run concurrently. This submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. 7. In the meanwhile, learned HCGP for the State submits that the petitioner who is arraigned as accused in the aforesaid three cases, all of which have been ended in conviction for offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC. Apart from the present three cases, the accused is also required involved in six other cases. In that, the petitioner/accused is required to face trial in respect of the cases in Cr.No.116/2017, Cr.No.212/2017, Cr.No.242/2017 which are pending before the Court of the XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru. Cr.No.116/2017 has been registered for offences under Sections 454, 380, 411 and 413 IPC, while Cr.No.212/2017 and Cr.No.242/2017 have been registered for offences under Sections 380, 454 and 457 of the IPC. The aforesaid three crimes are of the year 2017 and have been registered by the Vijayanagar P.S. Bengaluru City. Three other cases in C.C.No.10859/2018, C.C.No.5959/2018 and C.C.No.20975/2018 are all charge-sheeted cases and charge-sheet has been laid by the Vijayanagar P.S., Hanumanthanagar P.S. and Vyalikaval P.S. respectively and two cases are pending before the Court of the XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru and third case is pending before the Court of the VIII ACMM, Bengaluru. In all the above mentioned petitions, bail has been granted in favour of the petitioner. 8. The modus operandi as revealed in the crime stage and even in the charge-sheeted stage is that the accused is involved in commission of offences by trespass and committing theft. 9. In all the above mentioned petitions, bail has been granted in favour of the petitioner. 8. The modus operandi as revealed in the crime stage and even in the charge-sheeted stage is that the accused is involved in commission of offences by trespass and committing theft. 9. When these cases are pending for investigating stage and also charge-sheet has been laid and accused are required to face trial, therefore, it is not proper to persuade this matter for the present. 10. Keeping in view the involvement of the petitioner/accused in several cases and moreover three cases in crime stage and three cases are in trial stage and the accused is required to face trial, the Investigating Agency is required to investigate the cases in order to lay a charge-sheet as contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. by following the requisite conditions relating to the offences. But at this juncture, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has facilitated a number of citations in support of his contention for seeking service of sentence in respect of the three cases in C.C.No.24983/2017, C.C.No.25693/2017 and C.C.No.25691/2017 to run concurrently, but for the present, the petitioner/accused is not deserving for the relief sought for even in view of Section 427 Cr.P.C. even referring to Ramayana relating to reformation of this accused. It cannot be accepted that this accused would reform from the alleged offences, in view of the same modus operandi adopted by him in all the cases in lurking and trespassing and thereafter committing theft. Therefore, it is not desirable to dwell into exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though it is an inherent power, that power shall be exercised judicially, judiciously, sparingly and even though the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a vast power given to meet the ends of justice, that concept shall be in a wider sense, which should not only be in favour of the accused, but it should be equally in favour of the complainant as well. 12. In the meanwhile of completion of the dictation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused is not inclined to persuade this matter and hence, seeks to withdraw the petition as not pressed. 13. This submission of the learned counsel is placed on record. 12. In the meanwhile of completion of the dictation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused is not inclined to persuade this matter and hence, seeks to withdraw the petition as not pressed. 13. This submission of the learned counsel is placed on record. However, in view of the fact that dictation has been completed in this matter after considering the submissions and contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counter arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for the State, at this stage, it is appropriate to dismiss this petition as being without any merits. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.