Single judge dismissed a criminal application seeking to run two separate sentences concurrently. The court held that as the offenses, trials, and convictions were distinct, the prayer could not be granted.
The application praying for sentences to run concurrently is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4344 OF 2009
Said Alimastan Shaikh .. Applicant
Vs
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr. Shekhar Bhise for the applicant.
Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17th November, 2009
P.C.:
1. Heard.
2. By this application, the applicant prays that this court may pass the order that two sentences imposed on the applicant be allowed to
run concurrently.
3. The learned A.P.P. objects the prayer and submits that the applicant was convicted in two different cases, one by the Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No. 280/PW/2006 and another by
appln4344-09.sxw
RMA
2
the Sessions Court of Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 329 of 2006. Two offenses involved were entirely different and not connected with each other and the trials were separate and convictions are also separate.
4. In view of this, the prayer of the applicant cannot be granted. The application is rejected.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant shall inform the order to the applicant who is in jail.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
appln4344-09.sxw
RMA
3
appln4344-09.sxw
RMA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether two separate sentences imposed in different trials running concurrently is maintainable.
Said Alimastan Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
