Mitter, J.:— This Rule was issued by the Bench taking undefended criminal cases to show cause why the petitioner's sentences should not be made concurrent.
2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows:
1. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months under S. 468 of the Penal Code, passed on 19-5-1951;
2. A sentence of 4 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more under S. 420 of the Penal Code, passed on 5-9-1951;
3. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 2 months more under S. 420 of the Penal Code, passed on 22-9-1951;
3. And lastly, a sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment under S. 474 of the Penal Code passed by Sen, J. on 20-6-1952.
4. The petitioner prays that the several sentences imposed upon him be directed to run concurrently.
5. It is clear that so far as the petitioner's conviction and the sentence imposed upon him by this Court are concerned, we cannot interfere. With regard to the sentences in respect of the other three convictions, we have, in our view, power under Section 561-A of the Cr PC to order that they may run concurrently. In all the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct that the petitioner's sentences in respect of the first three convictions do run concurrently.
6. The Rule is disposed of accordingly.
Renupada Mukherjee, J.:— I agree.
D.H.Z
7. Order accordingly.