.( 120 )
Present: Ennis J.
THE KING r. MENDIYA.
C. Galle, 14,512.
Criminal Procedure Code, s. SSI—Accused sentenced to a term of imprison-ment—Sentence to run concurrently with a sentence accused wasundergoing in another case.
Where (he Coart sentenced an accused to a term of imprison-ment, and directed the sentence should run concurrently with thesentence the accused was undergoing in another case.
Held, the order that the sentences were to run concurrently wasnot objectionable in the .circumstances.
HIS was an- application for revision by the Solicitor-General.
Janse, C.C., in support.
September 13, 1922. Ennis J.—
In this case the learned Judge sentenced one accused to 4 yearsrigorous imprisonment and another one to 2 years’ rigorous imprison-ment, and directed that the sentences should run concurrently withthe sentences the accused were at present undergoing. It appearsthat the accused were undergoing imprisonment in "another case.It is urged that the learned Judge had no power to make his ownsentence run concurrently with a sentence in some other case*because section 321 provides that where a person is actually under-going imprisonment and is sentenced to a further term, such furtherterm shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to whichhe had been previously sentenced.
Had the learned Judge so wished, he himself could have made acalculation and have imposed a sentence which would take intoaccount the sentences the accused were already undergoing. Sucha calculation might have necessitated further information, not athis disposal at the moment of giving the sentence, to enable him tomake allowance in his own sentence for the previous sentence. Thereis no objection in my opinion to the use of the expression that thesentences should run concurrently with the sentences the accusedare already undergoing. It is merely a matter of terminology.
The application is refused.
THE KING v. MENDIYA