Judgment:
ORDER
1. This is an application filed under S. 482, Cri.P.C. by the accused in C.C. Nos. 61/91; 62/91 and 63/91 on the file of the IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada requesting the Court for issue of a direction that the sentences of imprisonment awarded to him in the said three cases should run concurrently.
The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are in brief as follows : On 30th March, 1991, 31st March, 92 and 5th April, 1991 theft of cycles took place. In respect of each theft, report was given to the police and the police registered them as Crime Nos. 21/91, 22/91 and 23/91 respectively. Sub-sequently during investigation, the petitioner herein was arrested on suspicion and at his instance the three cycles that were stolen were recovered at one time. The Police filed three separate charge-sheets for offences under sections 379 and 411, IPC. They were registered as C.Cs. Nos. 61/91, 62/91 and 63/91.
2. There was no material to connect the accused with the commission of theft. So, charges under S. 411, IPC were framed in each case. The petitioner pleaded guilty. The learned Magistrate accepted the plea as true and voluntary convicted the petitioner for offence under S. 411, IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in each case. Aggrieved by that the petitioner filed Cri. A. in Cri A. Nos. 348/91 and 349/91 before the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed all the three appeals confirming the conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this application under S. 482, Cr.P.C.
3. So, the point that arises for consideration is whether the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in C.C. Nos. 61/91, 62/91 and 63/91 should be ordered to run concurrently.
4. Normally, whether the sentences awarded should be ordered to run concurrently or not is a matter within the discretion of the Court which convicts the accused or which disposes of the appeal. But, in the instant case the accused has come upon with this application under S. 482, Cr.P.C. under S. 482, Cr.P.C. the High Court can pass much orders as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice. In all these three cases, wherein the petitioner was separately charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 379 and 411, I.P.C. there is absolutely no evidence to connect him with the commission of offence i.e. theft. The only circumstance is that the property which was the subject matter of theft namely the three cycles were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly framed charges under S. 411, IPC only against the petitioner in all the three cases. Here, it should be remembered that the recovery of property which was the subject matter of theft in all the three cases was made at one time and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had come into possession of these properties at different points of time. So, under the circumstances, there could have been only one charge sheet for offence under S. 411, IPC. Different charge-sheets for offences under S. 411, IPC could be filed only when the prosecution is able to prove that the accused had come into possession of the properties which are the subject matter, of different thefts at different points of time. But in the instant case, there is no such material. So, I am of the opinion that even if three separate charge-sheets have been filed by the appellants, the Magistrate ought to have clubbed them and disposed of the same as one offence. The learned Magistrate erred in treating each as a separate offence by registering separate cases. If the Magistrate had treated the same as one offence he could have passed only one sentence. But the Magistrate has erroneously registered three separate cases and awarded separate sentences. So, in order to nullify the effect of the same, I feel that it would be just and proper to order sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in all cases should run concurrently by invoking the provisions under S. 482, Cr.P.C.
5. In the result the petition is allowed, the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in C.C. Nos. 61/91 62/91 and 63/91 on the file of the IV Additional Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kakinada are ordered to run concurrently.
6. Petition allowed.