IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Shrawan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4230 of 2018
Decided On : 13-02-2019
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 427 CRPC - CONCURRENT SENTENCES - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Petitioner convicted in 32 different cases for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Petitioner's prayer for concurrent running of all the sentences awarded to him in 32 different cases was allowed by the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted in 32 different cases for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was sentenced to different terms of imprisonment in each case, with the maximum sentence being 2 years' simple imprisonment along with fine. The petitioner had already served 5 years and 8 months of his sentence at the time of filing the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of concurrent sentences under section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court observed that the petitioner had already served a substantial portion of his sentence and that it would be unjust to make him serve the remaining sentences consecutively. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not been released on parole or interim bail during his period of incarceration.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of concurrent sentences under section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court relied on the following precedents in reaching its decision: * State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2836 * V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2013 Cr.L.J. 3986 * Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr., AIR 2016 SC 5021 * Ammavasai & Anr. vs. Inspector of Police & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3544 The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of concurrent sentences as it would be inconsistent with the administration of criminal justice to make him serve the remaining sentences consecutively.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and ordered that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in the 32 cases would run concurrently. However, the petitioner was directed to serve the default sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Learned counsel for both the parties fairly concede that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2883/2014 Rajender Kabra vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 17.02.2017. The relevant portion of the judgment in Rajender Kabra (supra) reads as under:
"This second criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer that the sentences awarded to him in 32 different cases for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, details of which are being provided in later part of this order, may be ordered to run concurrently.
The earlier S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.113/2013 preferred by the petitioner before this Court was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.05.2013. The order dated 16.05.2013 is reproduced hereunder:
"The present petitioner had issued cheques to various persons. Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bad financial condition of the petitioner and the circumstances beyond his control, all the cheques bounced and petitioner has been convicted in 32 cases.
In the present petition, prayer has been made that sentences awarded in 32 cases may be ordered to run concurrently. Counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is only appellate Court or revisional Court which can direct that the sentences should run concurrently and this power cannot be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 Therefore, counsel for the petitioner submits that a directions be given to the State Government to consider the representation of the petitioner sympathetically, otherwise, if the sentences are made to run concurrently, the petitioner shall remain behind the bars for 35 years.
After hearing counsel for the parties, present petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made by the counsel for the State. Let petitioner file a representation to the State Authorities for remitting the sentence or ordering that the sentence awarded upon the petitioner in all cases shall ran concurrently. In case, such a representation is preferred within two weeks' from today, the State Authorities shall take a conscious decision thereupon within two months. Liberty is also granted to petitioner to take recourse to lawful remedy in case State Authorities decline the representation."
The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition claiming that though pursuant to the order passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.113/2013, wife of the petitioner had already moved a representation to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan but the same was returned with a remark that she may move a representation before the Government of India. It is averred in the petition that as the prescribed two weeks' time for making representation on behalf of the petitioner has already been expired, therefore, the petitioner is again approaching this Court by way of this criminal misc. petition seeking above mentioned relief. In the meantime, a reference was made to the Division Bench of this Court to adjudicate the following question:
"WHETHER, the High Court exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 and order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently."
The Division Bench of this Court in Arjun Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in (2016) 1 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346 (D.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.1912/2013 along with three other miscellaneous petitions), answered the said reference in the following terms:
"As per section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in normal course a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, if sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment commence at the expiration of th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.