Summary of Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner sought an order that sentences already passed in four different cases be made to run concurrently. The opinion states that the petitioner has exhausted all remedies available to him under the law and that the present application is effectively a request to review orders previously passed by the trial court and the appellate court. The court considered whether it could entertain this application under the Criminal Procedure Code and addressed whether any relief could be granted (for example, in the case of a clerical error).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court can entertain an application to direct that sentences already imposed in four different cases run concurrently, when such an application functions as a review of trial and appellate orders.
2. Whether there exists any provision under the Criminal Procedure Code permitting the court to review and alter sentences of this nature, other than relief for clerical errors.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded as follows:

• It noted that the petitioner had exhausted all legal remedies available to him.
• It observed that the petition sought that sentences in four separate cases be ordered to run concurrently, and that this request was in substance a review of earlier orders of the trial and appellate courts.
• The court stated there is no provision in law under the Criminal Procedure Code for entertaining such a review.
• The court recognized an exception: if the matter involved a mere clerical error, relief could be given to correct the sentence. However, the court found this case did not involve a clerical error.
• Having determined there was no statutory basis to entertain the petition and that the case did not qualify for the narrow clerical-error remedy, the court concluded the application was without merit.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Direct effect: The petition asking that sentences in four different cases be made to run concurrently was dismissed for being devoid of merits. The court declined to review or alter the sentences because there is no provision under the Criminal Procedure Code permitting such review in the circumstances presented, and the matter was not a clerical error eligible for correction.

No broader implications are discussed in the opinion beyond the denial of the requested relief to the petitioner.