S. S. Grewal, J.
1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the only prayer made is to the effect that the substantive sentence of imprisonment of 21/2 years, relating to FIR No. 86/1982 on 19111986, for commission of offence under Section 9(1) of the Opium Act, as well as the substantive sentence of imprisonment of 9 months, relating to FIR No. 87/1982, on 29111986 under Section 61 (1) of the Excise Act, awarded to the present petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, may be ordered to run concurrently.
2. Neither the trial Court, nor the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, while disposing of appeal against conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act, gave any direction as to whether sentences awarded to the present petitioner in the aforesaid 2 criminal cases were to run concurrently, or, consecutively. Perusal of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Annexure P/1 and that of the trial Court, Annexure P/2 clearly indicate that in both the cases referred to above, recovery of contraband articles was effected from the present petitioner and his coaccused at the same time when the car in which they were travelling was intercepted at Kalanaur Sales Tax barrier on the Jagadhri Saharanpur road.
3. This Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code deems it to be fit to rectify this glaring defect. The substantive sentences of imprisonment in both the said cases can be directed to run concurrently, even if the order of conviction, and sentence had become final. Such discretion cannot in any way be fettered by Section 427(1) of the Code. I am fortified in my view by full bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sher Singh v. State of M.P., 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 696.
4. I am further supported in my view by the decision of this High Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1985(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 83, where in 39 cases registered against the accused and tried separately, various terms of imprisonment in those cases were ordered to run concurrently by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the present petitioner in the aforesaid two cases are ordered to run concurrently However, the sentence of fine or sentence of imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine, as directed by the courts below, shall stand.
6. This petition is allowed accordingly.
