1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6132 OF 2016 BETWEEN: Sudarshan, Aged 23 years, Son of Late Prabhakar Balegara, Resident of Pakshikere, Haleangadi, Mangalore Taluk, Mangalore 574 281. …PETITIONER (By Shri Chandrahasa Rai B., Advocate) AND: The State by Udupi Town Police Station and Shirva Police Station, Udupi Taluk, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Karnataka High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. …RESPONDENT 2 (By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader) ***** This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to pass orders that the three sentences passed against the petitioner by the III Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Court, Udupi in C.C.No.4422/2007 dated 10.7.2012 and dated 30.3.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Court, Udupi in C.C.No.2768/2009 and C.C.No.3108/2005 dated 19.3.2012 to run concurrently and the period of set off as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C under remand custody as an under trial prisoner during investigation, inquiry or trial. This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following: O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner was arraigned as accused no.2 in a Case in CC 4422/2007 arising out of Crime No.62/2006. He was also arraigned as an accused in a Case in CC 2768/2009 and in yet another case in CC 3108/2005 and he was in custody from inception and stood trial in all the three cases and has been 3 convicted by imposition of sentences in each of the aforesaid cases for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no order of the court below as regards the sentence imposed in the second and third cases to run concurrently with the punishment that he had already suffered in the first case. As a result, the petitioner would have to undergo imprisonment consecutively in each of the three cases leading to a total punishment of imprisonment of eight years. 3. From a reading of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is no bar for a court to convict the accused and sentence him to imprisonment and the period of imprisonment to run consecutively. It is always the discretion of the court to state that the punishment would run concurrently. In cases involving imposition of life sentences which are to run consecutively, the Supreme Court, in several cases, has opined that it would always run concurrently for more than one reason. As for instance, if a person was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and if he was released 4 on parole while undergoing the life imprisonment and if he had committed the second offence of murder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, it would result in the said convicted person undergoing life imprisonment continuously. It is on that reasoning that the Supreme Court has held that when multiple sentences of imprisonment for life are imposed, they should run concurrently. Further, if the punishment of imprisonment is to ensure that there is reformation in the conduct of the accused and in the given case on hand, when the petitioner is said to be 23 years old, the hope of reformation would vanish if the petitioner should continue in prison along with the hardened criminals for a longer period of time. On that reasoning, it would be in the interest of justice if the sentences imposed on the petitioner in the three cases are ordered to run concurrently and if the benefit of set off is given to the petitioner, in which event, the petitioner would be set at liberty forthwith. 5 Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The sentences are made to run concurrently. The petitioner shall be afforded the benefit of set off and shall be set at liberty forthwith. The operative portion of the order shall be transmitted to the Jail authorities forthwith. Sd/- JUDGE nv .