1 Delay condoned.
2 Leave granted.
3 The appellant was convicted in respect of two separate incidents.
In one Sessions Trial, he was convicted and sentenced under Sections 395, 396
and 397, I.P.C. against which an appeal was preferred, being Crl.A.40/2003,
which was dismissed. The special leave petition filed against the said decision of
the High Court was also dismissed.
4 In connection with the other incident in Sessions Case 11 of 1999,
the appellant was convicted under Sections 393 and 397 read with 34 IPC
and
SR686/09 -2separately sentenced to undergo 5 years imprisonment for the offences under
Section 392 and 10 years for the offence under Section 397.
5 The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order of the
Delhi High Court in connection with Criminal Appeal No.823 of 2001, arising
out of the Sessions Case 11/99.
6 In the present case, the question which has arisen is with regard to the
directions given by the High Court that the sentence in this appeal would start
operating once the sentence in Crl.Appeal 40/03 came to an end. The said order
has been passed keeping in mind the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
7 Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having
further regard to the discretion which has been vested in the Court under
Section 427 Cr.P.C. to direct the sentence to run concurrently, if found fit, we
modify the order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.823 of 2001
and direct that all the sentences in both the appeals shall run concurrently.
sr1686/09 -3-
8 The appeal is disposed of.
New Delhi, May 14, 2009.