Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Dhiraj Singh - Appellants
Vs.
State and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2845/2020
Decided On : 28-01-2021
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - N.I. Act - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 482 and 427 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 395 - Dishonor of the cheques - Seeking direction to run all the sentences concurrently – Appeal against conviction - Case as noticed by this Court are that seven complaints were filed in different courts on different dates in connection with dishonor of the cheques in question for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act - Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate - Second criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of petitioner with a prayer that the sentences awarded to him in 32 different cases for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Petitioner very fairly submits that as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is only appellate Court or revisional Court which can direct that sentences should run concurrently and this power cannot be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C - Counsel for petitioner submits that a directions be given to State Government to consider representation of the petitioner sympathetically sentences are made to run concurrently, the petitioner shall remain behind the bars for 35 years - Held, 2nd appellant was convicted in 5 different cases occurrence in all of which took place - He was also found guilty under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years in each case - If benefit conferred under Section 427 is not extended to him, he may have to undergo imprisonment for a total period of 35 years in jail – Court allow appellants to have the benefit of all sentences to run concurrently, he would be out by now after serving only imprisonment for a period of 7 years awarded in one case. Both courses are unacceptable to us and thought of a via-media which would be consistent with the administration of criminal justice - After bestowing our anxious consideration thought that if the appellants would undergo a total period of 14 years of imprisonment in respect of all the convictions passed against them that will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice – Court view that it would not be inconsistent with administration of criminal justice if petitioner is allowed the benefit of discretion contained in section 427 of the Code to meet the ends of justice - Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.
2. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner seeking direction to run all the sentences concurrently passed against the petitioner in seven cases by the learned trial courts mentioned in Schedule-A of the petition for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that seven complaints were filed in different courts on different dates in connection with dishonor of the cheques in question for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide judgment dated 24.03.2018 in Case No. 48/13 (30483/14) passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 2, Jodhpur, judgment dated 30.05.2019 in Case No. 989/18 (8746/17) passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 8, Jodhpur, judgment dated 07.09.2018 in Case No. 130/14 (30478/14) passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 2, Jodhpur, judgment dated 02.12.2019 in Case No. 416/16 (1385/17) passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 7, Jodhpur, judgment dated 04.03.2020 in Case No. 1268/15 (8802/18) passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur, judgment dated 05.03.2020 in Case No. 1917/18 (15516/18) passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur and judgment dated 06.03.2020 in Case No. 641/17 (14579/17) passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 2, Jodhpur.
4. 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:
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. 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 to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
