In 'rm men cotmr or xamurram A1'
Batcd this the 9"' day of September, A'
Present:
'rm noz¢'s1:.s a::.Jus1*zc::J§ §k;'5:.t:¢BiU:aIA4§'§:s_
'rm aox*3m nu. wsTrr;s"-5.3. vsmfiorwé.
cnmnmr. pr;*rrr1dr'r .u®s4 13' V}
BETWEEK:
S/0 Ningcgowjria'; ._
Aged about'é4..yc:--éa;$§ ~ ' _
Presently Ci.'}I1ޣi'i;3d'i]'1"--- . "
Centrai
Pemaanent 'R19 Meiiiénagaita vi]_1é1'gé:,
CI:1eJ1I1raIay3pat1*s,{%_ " - .... __ -- .
Hassan' District,
Mr. Raja @ Dosewala "
... PETITIONER.
(By Sri. Di':mm_V%' 353;. A:mi:_"..4'
-_. 4S:::v§)jeI'iI1tenc§Le11t,
« A €en§*a1'L-Prisca,
»B.M,.~P?c_iad,
M ;{ s£3.1je4'7 .
x V A .. 2. 'T E'».1fateNof Karnataka,
* Riépresented by Inspector ofPo1ice,
Devaraja Police Station,
Mysore.
3. State of Kamataka,
Represented by Inspectcnr of Police,
Kushalanagar Cincrie,
Kodagu District.
4. State of Kanzaamka,
Represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Kazmataka,
Vidhana Soudha, , __ .
At Bangaicre. A
(By Sxti. S. B. Pavia, SPF')
- u ¢ - ' ' ..
This Criminal Petition is_.fi1ed_:n;:der Sez:t,io1;.:482 Cr.P.C.
by the Advocate for to consider the
appearance of the peiitionet on the file of
the Munsifi 63 oVn'p%!;'V12.1996 or pass an
order to clutf ethe _ petesed in cases S.C.N0.
79/1995 011 reg file of Aeéifigna Sessions Judge, Mysore
on 31.7.2993 a1ic14__4it1VvS;V1{l,I.'\4¥'(:>:."-Qéftffi on the file of the learned
Sessions Jjadge, oti 1T1.7.2O02 ten order to undergo
in b6th't11e cases concmxently.
~'§'l::iis 'V V"pe.tition comm' g on for Admission this
"~.d..<%ty, inade the followingzv
ORDER
“:*1§.i’s ‘Criminal Petitim} flied under Section 432 Cr.P.C.,
V _ ‘beet1 Ieferred to the Division Beach by the learned Single
2. Even though we do not find any question of iaw to be
decided by the Division Bench on xeference, we find fmrn the
order of reference by the iearned Single Judge,
that as the subject matter on earlier occasion was
deait by the Division Bench, possibly to
conflicting deeisfnns, the learned. tins the
1.1!-ztter to the Division Bench,’
3. We have V for the
accused] petitioner and the Pmsecntor for
the State.
be noted that this petition under
Section 432.. Cling only miseoneeived but also not
‘~ Iifio’ne..peruses the petition, we are not eeitain as
V the petinbner Wants from this Court. In para-8 of
gefiuon, it is stated that, this petition is filed being
aggiieyetie the judgment and onier of the learned Sessions
i:f..Ju<}-ge Kociagu at Madikeri passed on 113.2002 in S.C.No.
243i/i2i0O{). However, in the prayer it is as foliorws:
Q
jurisdiction under Section 427 Cr.P.C., the scntcn.-33$-«.i»:1~V.xboth
the cases were required to be held as C0E1C11'_:Tl_'I'ft1'CiiZ-.._\_fi(}Vt;
consecutive.' It is to be noted thgt, bixafacf
fiudgment on 1.3.2004 in Crimiifgai::A;3g;5céi 11.E§7t'$f'i?§{)Q2; a11 "
application was filed by petitiéneqf in
by the order, dated 21.6.2004 detail. It
is to be noted that, jtxxgsciicfion under
Section 427 Cr. is fiiefl settled. in the
case of H081). couvcmn, cracstmam
(pxnvnnnorig, £938' V St: 2143), the Hon'bk:
Suprettc Cmjrt. 1 1a$" —-thus:
‘- me Section relates to administration
justice and provides procedure for
The sentencing court is,
thiéféfore, required to consider and make an
‘ ~. fippmpwiate order as to how the sentence
passed in the subsequent case is to run.
Whether it should be concurrent or
consecutive?
10. The basic rate of thumb over the
years has been the scvcalled singfe
transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If
5″‘ %