Grahari Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- labour & services appointment: [v.k. bali, ch, p.r. raman & s. siri jagan, jj] post of pharmacist in homeopathy subordinate service - special rules for kerala homeopathy subordinate service rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules held, vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with special rules, 1999. unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by special rules. state government has the power to frame or amend the special rules with or without retrospective effect. mohanan k.r. & anr vs director of homeopathy, kerala homeopathy services, trivandrum & ors. - appeal was unsuccessful and hence the revision petition. 633/87. a few days back a habitual offender with 16 convictions, made a like prayer. i have noticed like prayers, often made before this court and in trial courts.orderchettur sankaran nair, j.1. petitioner, a convict prisoner undergoing imprisonment jumped jail, was rearrested, tried and convicted of the offence under section 225 b. a sentence of six months was imposed. appeal was unsuccessful and hence the revision petition.2. sentence of imprisonment petitioner is undergoing would terminate only on 7-9-1988.3. prayer in this petition is to make the sentence now imposed concurrent with the sentence which petitioner is undergoing. if it is so made, petitioner will not have to suffer consequences of the conviction and petitioner may feel justified in making similar attempts. even if he does not succeed, nothing will be lost, if sentences are to be concurrent.4. courts have power to direct sentences to run concurrently. such power must also be exercised in proper cases. but it must not be so exercised to make sentences ineffective or crime inconsequential. sometimes habitual offenders with several convictions make a limited prayer for concurrent sentences and such prayers are benevolently granted. result could be that crimes escape punishment and even dangerous criminals, who must be segregated are let loose. a similar prayer was made before me today in crl. r.p. 633/87. a few days back a habitual offender with 16 convictions, made a like prayer. i have noticed like prayers, often made before this court and in trial courts. sometimes, unwarily such are granted, missing the disguise. court must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances and should not make it a meaningless exercise, missing the nuances of the case.having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the sentences will run consecutively. the sentence of six months - which is the maximum, is reduced to three months. with this modification, petition is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.

1. Petitioner, a convict prisoner undergoing imprisonment jumped jail, was rearrested, tried and convicted of the offence under Section 225 B. A sentence of six months was imposed. Appeal was unsuccessful and hence the revision petition.

2. Sentence of imprisonment petitioner is undergoing would terminate only on 7-9-1988.

3. Prayer in this petition is to make the sentence now imposed concurrent with the sentence which petitioner is undergoing. If it is so made, petitioner will not have to suffer consequences of the conviction and petitioner may feel justified in making similar attempts. Even if he does not succeed, nothing will be lost, if sentences are to be concurrent.

4. Courts have power to direct sentences to run concurrently. Such power must also be exercised in proper cases. But it must not be so exercised to make sentences ineffective or crime inconsequential. Sometimes habitual offenders with several convictions make a limited prayer for concurrent sentences and such prayers are benevolently granted. Result could be that crimes escape punishment and even dangerous criminals, who must be segregated are let loose. A similar prayer was made before me today in Crl. R.P. 633/87. A few days back a habitual offender with 16 convictions, made a like prayer. I have noticed like prayers, often made before this Court and in trial courts. Sometimes, unwarily such are granted, missing the disguise. Court must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances and should not make it a meaningless exercise, missing the nuances of the case.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the sentences will run consecutively. The sentence of six months - which is the maximum, is reduced to three months. With this modification, petition is dismissed.