K.C PURI, J.
Petitioner-Ramesh Kumar has directed the present application under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - the Cr. P.C) for ordering the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner-Ramesh Kumar in case FIR No. 10 dated 24.1.1997 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short - the IPC) vide judgment dated 9.7.2012 Chandigarh by Judicial Magistrate First Class, against which appeal before learned Sessions Judge as well as Criminal Revision No. 2037 of 2012 filed by him were dismissed by this Court on 20.7.2012 may be ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in case FIR No. 97 dated 18.12.1996 Police Station Bassi Pathana District Fatehgarh Sahib by Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and order dated 3.11.2011 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and 465 read with Section 120-B, IPC.
2. Upon notice, instead of filing any reply to the above said application the learned State counsel has opted to argue the matter.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.
4. The revision against the judgment dated 9.5.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib in respect of FIR No. 97 dated 18.12.1996 registered under Sections 420, 465, 120-B of the IPC PS Bassi Pathana was fixed for 4.12.2012 The present application was moved in the said revision petition. However, that revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn but the argument in the present criminal misc petition were addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on that day and the case was reserved on the decision whether the sentences can be made concurrent in the above said two FIRs. The Full Bench of this Court reported in Jang Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 323 lays down the law regarding making the sentence concurrent as under:-
“(1) Discretion to make the sentences to run consecutively or concurrently would be governed by different considerations, like facts of each case, nature and character of the offences, criminal history sheet and record of the offender, his age, sex.
(2) Each case is to be decided depending upon its facts. Nature and gravity of the offence would certainly be a relevant factor and so too the record of the offender including his age, sex etc.
(3) A person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment and is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to an imprisonment or an imprisonment for life, then such imprisonment or imprisonment of life shall commence after the expiration of the imprisonment, to which he has been previously sentenced. This, however, would not be so if the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.
(4) Direction to make the sentences to run concurrently can be exercised by the trial Court or by the appellate Court or a revisional Court at the time of exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction as well. It may not be open for a person to seek such direction for making the sentences to run concurrently by moving an application under Sections 482 and 427 of Criminal Procedure Code.
(5) Section 427 Criminal Procedure Code is aimed at amelioration and this aspect may also require to be kept in view while exercising the discretion.
(6) Thumb Rule that concurrent sentences are to be awarded in case of single transaction may not apply if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting two offences are different. It is the sentencing Court, which is required to apply its mind and consider what would be an appropriate sentence in a given case or in other words, if the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive.
(7) If the accused is habitual offender and is found guilty on various counts and it is suspected that he would be a menace to the society if let loose, then the term of consecutive sentences should be given. 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 667 (SC) relied.
(8) Habitual offenders should not be given some treatment given to normal offenders. Segregation of the habitual offender by making them to undergo sentences consecutively can also be accepted as principle.
(9) Accused already undergoing imprisonment for life - Accused subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment in another case - Subsequent sentence shall run concurrently - No specific order of concurrent running of sentence is required-However, a person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment and is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to an imprisonment or an imprisonment for life, then such imprisonment or imprisonment of life shall commence after the expiration of the imprisonment, to which he has been previously sentenced. This, however, would not be so if the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 2007 (1) RCR (Crl.) 868 (SC) and 2007 (1) R.A.J 612 (SC) relied.”
5. The said authority has been relied upon by this court in ruling Sameer Ahmad v. State of Haryana reported in 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) page 612 and by Division Bench of this Court in authority Pritam Singh… v. State Of Punjab… reported in 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) page 712 in which it has been held that in appropriate case provision of Section 427 Cr.P.C making the sentence concurrent can be ordered on the facts of the said cases.
6. Both the FIRs referred to above relate to same nature of case and accused has been convicted in both the cases. The revision against one of the cases was pending.
7. So, considering all the aspects of the case, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met in case the sentences ordered in above said FIRs are made concurrent, in view of the law discussed above and as such I order accordingly.
8. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.