ORDER
O.P. Garg, J.
1. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has come up before this Court in the following circumstances.
2. The applicant Hanoo alisas Har Narain has been convicted by Sri S. S. Rana, IInd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi by order dated 10-8-1994 under Section 457, 380 and 411, I.P.C. in four different cases Nos. 824, 825, 826 and 827/ 94. pertaining to separate incident and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on each of the counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of the payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of four months. There is no order that sentences passed in the aforesaid four eases are to run concurrently, meaning thereby the applicant has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in succession in each of four cases. Against the order of conviction and sentence passed in criminal case No. 827 of 1994, applicant Hanoo filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jhansi. Appeal No. 7 of 1996 was decided by Sri R. P. Pandey, the then sessions Judge, Jhansi by his order dated 30-1-1996. The order imposing fine was set-aside and the sentnece of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone.
3. The applicant is in jail since 2-9-1993 and on the date or present application which was filed on July, 30, 1996, he had remained in jail for a period of about two years and ten months. The applicant is still in jail and now the period of his confinment in jail in connection with the orders of sentence passed in the aforesaid cases comes to about 3 years and 8 months. The applicant moved an application before the trial Court (S. S. Rana, IInd A.C.J.M.) praying that sentences passed by him in the aforesaid cases be made to run concurrently so that the applicant may be released from jail. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 28-2-1996. In this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. it is prayed that the period spent by the applicant in jail which comes to more than 2 years and 10 months be counted as having been spent in all the four cases in which he has been convicted.
4. In spite of the fact that time was allowed to the Slate to file counter affidavit, it has not been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A.
5. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he had been previously sentenced unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous conviction. Sub-section (1) to Section 427, Cr.P.C. makes it discretionary with the Court to make a sentence consecutive or concurrent with the previous sentence. In the instant case, learned Magistrate has not passed an order that the sentences passed against the applicant in four different cases shall run concurrently.
6. The general rule is that a sentence commences to run from the time of its being passed but Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. creates an exception in the case of persons already undergoing imprisonment and postpones operation of the subsequent sentence untill after the expiry of the previous sentence.
7. The Court has been given discretion to make subsequent sentence to run concurrently. The legal position that the Court has the power to make sentences passed subsequently to run concurrently with the earlier order of sentence admits no doubt. As said above in one case (Criminal Case No. 827 of 1994) the applicant filed an appeal in which the sentence has been reduced to the period already undergone. Consequently, now the applicant is to serve out the sentence consecutively in all the three cases meaning thereby he is to remain in jail for a period of six years.
8. Now the question is whether this Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can make the sentence passed against the applicant in three different cases to run concurrently or not. There arc a series of decisions in which it has been held that the inherent power cannot be invoked to make the sentences run concurrently.
9. In AIR 1965 Patna 178 Mahabir Belder v. State, 1975 Cri LJ 498 (Madh Pra) A. S. Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh and AIR 1978 Delhi 138 (FB) Gopal Das v. State, it was held that the High Court in exercise of inherent power at the instance of a party who has a right of appeal or revision but has not availed himself of that right, cannot pass an order directing that a sentence of imprisonment awarded to such person on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment when he is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment on an earlier conviction shall run concurrently with such previous sentences.
10. Contrary to the above view is the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1974, Cri LJ 1397 Mulaim Singh v. State in which it has been categorically held that it would be competent for the High Court in exercise of its inherent power to direct that the sentence of imprisonment under a subsequent conviction shall run concurrent with a previous sentence even if the stage for exercise of discretion under Section 397(1) of the old code (Section 427(1) of the new Code) is over in circumstances where it would serve any of the three purposes mentioned in Section 561-A of the old Code (Section 482 of the new Code) i.e. to give effect to any order under the code, or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It was further observed that it would be proper exercise of discretion in exercise of inherent power to’ make the sentence on subsequent conviction to run concurrently with the previous sentence where separate trials held for each offences which while constituting a distinct offences are inherently or intimately connected with each other.
11. In the light of these observations of reference may profitably be made to a decision of Kerala High Court reported in 1983, Cri LJ 1262, Mani v. State of Kerala in which it was held that it would be competent for the High Court in exercise of its inherent power to direct that. the sentence in subsequent con viction to imprisonment may run concurrently with the previous sentence even if the stage for exercise of discretion under Section 427 of the Code is over in circumstances where it would serve any of the three purposes mentioned in Section 482. There is yet another case reported in 1983 Cri LJ 527 (Orissa) Basudeb v. State of Orissa in which it was observed by the Orissa High Court that there is no clear restriction in the Code of Criminal Procedure itself that direction to make consecutive sentences concurrent cannot be given in exercise of inherent power. Such a direction does not (sic) tough the merit of the matter and proceed on the acceptance of the judgment of conviction as also quantum of sentence. The inherent power vested in the Court is obviously intended for superintending the administration of criminal justice within the jurisdiction of the Court with a view to ensuring that ultimate justice is done. If the superior Court is not given this power there may be cases where the same accused would suffer convictions in different Courts and where judgment would be delivered by two separate Courts on the same date or near about it may not be possible for the original Court to deal with the case after there have been previous convictions to take note of the sentence awarded in other cases and modulate its own sentence accordingly.
12. The end product of law is justice. The inherent power of the High Court inheres in it because of its being at the apex of the judicial setup in a State. The inherent powers of the High Court are preserved by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and arc to be exercised in making order as may be necessary to accentuate the justice by securing it and to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. The measures employed to treat a convicted offender should serve a therapeutic function. Such measures should be designed to effect changes in the behaviour of the convicted person in the interest of his own happiness, health and the interest of social defence. A person who is sincerely trying to rehabilitate himself ought not to be demoralised.
13. The applicant convicted in the instant case is a person of young age of about 25 years. At the time of conviction he was about 22 years of age. He had been tried in four different cases for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 411, I.P.C. in respect of the the incidents which had taken place ranging over a period of couple of months. The applicant was convicted in all the four cases on the basis of his admission of guilt before the trial Court. The order of conviction and sentence in all the four cases were passed on one and the same day i.e. 10-8-1994 and by the same Magistrate. The offences are inherently and intimately connected with each other. As a matter of fact, the case of the applicant was mosteminenlly suited to make the sentences passed in four cases to run concurrently particularly in the circumstances enumerated above. The trial Court did not make a specific order to make the sentences run concurrently. The applicant, as said above filed an appeal in one of the cases in which he was convicted and the appellate Court rightly reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and the sentence of imposition of fine was set aside. The applicant who was and continues in jail could not avail the remedy of filing appeal/ revision against the remaining three orders of conviction and sentence passed against him. Now the applicant has already undergone the imprisonment for a period more than 3 and a half years. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, it is found that there can perhaps be no better case in which the inherent power of the Court can be exercised. Therefore, finding this to be most suitable case for exercising inherent power, it is ordered that the sentence of imprisonment passed by the IInd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi against the applicant in three cases viz. Criminal Case Nos. 824 of 1994, 825 of 1994, and 826 of 1994 shall run concurrently and the penalty of imposing fine is set aside. Since the period of imprisonment already undergone by the applicant is much more than two years period, it is directed that he shall be set at liberty by releasing from jail in the aforesaid cases immediately, provided he is not wanted or required in any case other than the cases mentioned above.