ORDER : 1. Instant matter comes up on an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 427 Cr.P.C with the prayer that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner in Criminal Case NO. 377/2015 (130/2015)(296/1998) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur, District Bhilwara vide judgment dated 29.11.2016 and in Criminal Case No. 05/2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan vide judgment dated 02.12.2016 may be ordered to run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that total two cases were registered against the petitioner. In Criminal case No. 377/2015, the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 420, 468, 473 IPC and sentenced to 07 years RI alongwith fine. Against the said judgment, petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara and same was dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2017 against which, petitioner has filed revision Petition No. 1418/2017. In another Criminal case No. 05/2014, the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 420, 419, 406, 120B IPC and sentenced to 05 years R.I alongwith fine. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maximum term of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in both the cases is 07 years alognwith fine. As per custody certificate of the petitioner, so far the petitioner has undergone imprisonment of 06 years 03 months as on 17.01.2024, therefore, it is prayed that since the offence relates to same period in different cases, therefore, it is a fit case, wherein the Court may exercise inherent powers for invoking Section 427 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anup Khati @ Kaliya Khati v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 (3) Cri.LR (Raj) 1246 and Rajender v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 (2) Cri.LR (Raj) 561. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has not disputed the custody certificate and other details mentioned therein. However, learned Public Prosecutor has in general opposed the prayer to invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. in the matter. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and considered the provisions envisaged under Section 427 Cr.P.C. 6. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has not disputed the custody certificate and other details mentioned therein. However, learned Public Prosecutor has in general opposed the prayer to invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. in the matter. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and considered the provisions envisaged under Section 427 Cr.P.C. 6. Before adverting to consider the prayer of the petitioner, it would be just and proper to examine rigor of Section 427 Cr.P.C., which reads as under: “(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.” 7. It is noteworthy that conviction in both the cases against the petitioner was recorded within a span of one year and he has already undergone sentence for about three years, therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction enshrined under Section 482 Cr.P.C to do substantial justice. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana reported in 2013 (7) SCC 211 ] examined the nature of power available to the Court under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. to direct sentences to run concurrently. The Court observed: “It is manifest from Section 427(1) that the Court has the power and the discretion to issue a direction but in the very nature of the power so conferred upon the Court the discretionary power shall have to be exercised along the judicial lines and not in a mechanical, wooden or pedantic manner. It is difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. It is difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. There is no cut and dried formula for the Court to follow in the matter of issue or refusal of a direction within the contemplation of Section 427(1). Whether or not a direction ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed, and the fact situation in which the question of concurrent running of the sentences arises.” 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arjun Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Reported in 2016 (1) RLW 723 (Raj.)], while answering a question of law referred to it, as to whether High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. so as to order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently, answered the same in affirmative. The Hon'ble Division Bench held as under: “25. As per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, in normal course a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, if sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, but the court in its discretion based on settled principles may direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. While exercising such discretion, the trial court, appellate court or revisional court, as the case may be, keeps in mind several factors. While examining such factors, the possibility of some error cannot be ruled out. Not only the error, but absolutely non-consideration of the issue about invoking this discretion, may also be there and that may cause great injustice. In general, it can be said that every provision of law is meant to impart justice and to ensure fair and objective treatment with every subject, but while doing so, the chances of causing injustice or failure in extending complete justice cannot be denied. To meet such an eventuality the inherent powers like Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure are meant and those are always open to be invoked to prevent abuse of process of court and secure the ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction is having a very large amplitude but should always be exercised cautiously and only to prevent miscarriage of justice. To meet such an eventuality the inherent powers like Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure are meant and those are always open to be invoked to prevent abuse of process of court and secure the ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction is having a very large amplitude but should always be exercised cautiously and only to prevent miscarriage of justice. While keeping in mind that the inherent powers must be exercised sparingly, the court should not restrain itself to invoke the same if any injury is caused to the justice. 26. 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.” 10. In similar circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anup Khati @ Kaliya Khati (supra) has passed the following order: “In such circumstances, the present misc. petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC are allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above referred 5 cases would run concurrently, however, the petitioner will have to serve default sentences as the provisions of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. The sentences, which the petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be effected by this direction and if the petitioner has not paid the fine/compensation as directed by the trial courts, the said sentences would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo default sentences (sentences awarded by the trial courts in default of payment of fine/compensation).” 11. In the present case the sentences awarded to petitioner in both the cases, if treated consecutively, then, total period of incarceration would be seven years maximum sentence. Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo default sentences (sentences awarded by the trial courts in default of payment of fine/compensation).” 11. In the present case the sentences awarded to petitioner in both the cases, if treated consecutively, then, total period of incarceration would be seven years maximum sentence. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration of more than six years. Consequently, in the light of law laid down by Division Bench in the case of Arjun Ram & Ors. (supra), it is a fit case to exercise inherent powers by invoking Section 427 Cr.P.C for preventing miscarriage of justice. 12. In view thereof, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed and it is hereby ordered that the sentences awarded to petitioner in Cases No. 377/2015 and 05/2014 shall run concurrently however, the petitioner will have to serve default sentences, as the provisions of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. The sentences, which the petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be effected by this direction and if the petitioner has not paid the fine/compensation as directed by the trial courts, the said sentences would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo default sentences (sentences awarded by the trial courts in default of payment of fine/compensation). So far the revision petition is concerned, since the petitioner has already undergone the substantive sentence of more than six years, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as not pressed. The pending applications are also disposed of. 13. Record of trial court be sent back forthwith.