Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Raj) 2172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Kalyan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6586 of 2018
Decided On : 03-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M.P. Singh for the Appellant; Mr. Dushyant Jain, for Mr. Anil Jain, Advocates, for the Respondent; Mr. N.S. Dhakad, P.P, for the State

Concurrent sentencing under Section 427 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
Section 427 Cr.P.C. - Concurrent Sentences - The court allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to make the sentences awarded in two different complaints run concurrently, based on the mandate of Section 427 Cr.P.C. and the principle that different complaints between the same parties should have been tried together.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner issued a bounced cheque and was convicted in two separate complaints. The petitioner sought to make the sentences awarded in both complaints run concurrently.
Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the petition, ordering the substantive sentences in both complaints to run concurrently, clarifying that it would not affect the sentence of fine and default clause in both complaints.
Issues: Concurrent sentencing under Section 427 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the mandate of Section 427 Cr.P.C. and the principle that different complaints between the same parties should have been tried together.
Final Decision: The substantive sentences awarded in both complaints were ordered to run concurrently.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed to make substantive sentences in two complaints run concurrently under Section 427 Cr.P.C. (!) - The order clarifies that concurrent sentencing does not affect the sentence of fine and the default clause in either complaint. (!) - The decision is based on the mandate of Section 427 Cr.P.C. and the principle that different complaints between the same parties should have been tried together. (!) - The two complaints involved: Criminal Complaint Nos. 131/2006 and 187/2007, both under section 138 NI Act, in the Jaipur Metropolitan court. (!) - The petition notes that judgments in the two complaints have attained finality prior to this order. (!) - The court explicitly states that substantive sentences shall run concurrently, without altering the fines or default clauses. (!) (!) - The petitioner’s conviction in the separate complaints was under section 138 NI Act with specified imprisonment and fines in each case: 3 months imprisonment and fines of Rs. 24,000 (case 131/2006), and 3 months imprisonment and fines of Rs. 2,40,000 (case 187/2007). (!) - The decision cites the Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. as supporting the principle that different complaints between the same parties should be tried together. (!)

What is the scope of Section 427 Cr.P.C. in concurrent sentencing?

What is the effect of concurrent sentences on substantive sentences versus fines and defaults?

What is the principle governing whether different complaints between the same parties should be tried together?

JUDGMENT

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying therein that the sentence awarded upon the petitioner in two different complaints between the same parties by invoking Section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 be made concurrent.

2. The petitioner had issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 12,000/- on 08.03.2006 in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 2 - Kailash Chand Jhalani. The said cheque, on presentation bounced and the complainant/respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Complaint bearing No. 131/2006 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. In the said complaint, on 15.02.2012 the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said Court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the petitioner to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 24,000/-, and in default of payment of fine the petitioner was further directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence has attained finality.

4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the complainant/respondent No. 2 had also filed another complaint bearing No. 187/2007 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, stating therein that the cheque, in question issued by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- on presentation had bounced. Counsel has further contended that in the second complaint bearing No. 187/2007 the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, vide its impugned order dated 15.02.2012, convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,40,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported as A.I.R. 2010 Supreme Court 1907 , to contend that between the parties if different complaints have been filed, the same should have been tried together.

6. After hearing ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner and taking into account the mandate of Section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 the present petition is allowed and the substantive sentences awarded upon the petitioner by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Complaint No. 131/2006 and Criminal Complaint No. 187/2007 by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, which have attained finality are ordered to run concurrently.

7. It is clarified that this Court has only ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently and this order shall not affect the sentence of fine awarded and default clause in both the above-noted complaints.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document