Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Sumer Singh Chundawat S/o Bhanwar Singh Chundawat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1102 of 2021
Decided on : 21/07/2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 427, 122, (1), (2) - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 395 - Cheques Bounced - Sentences to Run Concurrently - Present petitioner had issued cheques to various persons - Counsel for petitioner submits that due to bad financial condition of petitioner and circumstances beyond his control, all cheques bounced and petitioner has been convicted in 32 cases - In present petition, prayer has been made that sentences awarded in 32 cases may be ordered to run concurrently – Whether High Court exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. and order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently – Held, Having considered facts and circumstances of present case, offence involved, sentences awarded, period of detention of petitioner as on date and law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal, V.K.Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr. and Ammavasai & Anr. vs. Inspector of Police & Ors. (supra), Court is of considered view that it would not be inconsistent with administration of criminal justice if petitioner is allowed benefit of discretion contained in section 427 of Code to meet ends of justice - However, as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K.Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. and Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr. (supra), direction for concurrent running of sentences would be limited only to substantive sentences alone - In such circumstances, present misc. petition is allowed and it is ordered that substantive sentences awarded to petitioner in above referred 32 cases would run concurrently, however, petitioner will have to serve default sentences as provisions of section 427 of CrPC do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation - Sentences, which petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be effected by this direction and if petitioner has not paid fine/compensation as directed by trial courts, said sentences would run consecutively - Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that petitioner's sentence in six cases be permitted to run concurrently. The details of the cases are as follows:-
| Sr. No. | Case No. | Court | Date of Decision | Sentence + Fine / Compensation | Appeal |
| 1. | Regular Case No. 3024/2017 | SJM (N.I.) Act Cases No.2, Bhilwara | 10.04.19 | 15 Months S.I. +2,50,000 compensation + 3 months S.I. in default of payment |
|
| a. | Criminal Appeal No. 100/2019 | ADJ No.01, Bhilwara | 20.07.20 |
| Dismissed and order confirmed vide order dt. 10.4.19 |
| 2. | Regular Case No. 871/2016 | SJM (N.I.) Act Cases No.2, Bhilwara | 26.02.19 | 18 Months S.I. + 4,00,000 compensation+3 months S.I. in default of payment |
|
| a. | Criminal Appeal No. 83/2019 | ADJ No.1, Bhilwara | 20.07.20 |
| Dismissed and order confirmed vide order dt. 26.2.19 |
| 3. | Regular Case No. (233/10) 871/2016 | SJM (N.I.) Act Cases No.1, Bhilwara | 25.09.18 | 7 Months S.I.+ 1,00,000 compensation+ 1 Month S.I. in default of payment. |
|
| 4. | Regular Case No. (233/10) 295/2012 | SJM (N.I.) Act Cases No.1, Bhilwara | 25.09.18 | 9 Months S.I.+ 1,40,000 compensation+ 1 Month S.I. in default of payment |
|
| 5. | Regular Case No. (931/12) 3548/2018 | SJM (N.I.) Act Cases No.1, Bhilwara | 25.09.18 | 1 Year S.I. + 2,00,000 compensation+ 1 Month S.I. in default of payment. |
|
| 6. | Regular Case No.12446/ 14) (1470/17) | SJM (N.I.) Act Cases No.2, Bhilwara. | 10.04.19 | 15 Months S.I.+ 2,20,000 compensation+ 3 Months S.I. in default of payment |
|
2. 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 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. 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
SupremeToday
The court applied the discretion under section 427 Cr.P.C. to allow concurrent running of substantive sentences, considering the petitioner's prolonged detention and the nature of the offences.
The court applied section 427 Cr.P.C. and relevant Supreme Court precedents to allow concurrent running of substantive sentences for multiple convictions under section 138 of the N.I. Act, considerin....
The court upheld the legislative intent of section 427 Cr.P.C. and relevant precedents to allow concurrent running of substantive sentences to prevent prolonged imprisonment.
The court established that under Section 427 of the CrPC, sentences for multiple convictions can be ordered to run concurrently to prevent excessive imprisonment, provided there are no compelling rea....
The court applied the discretion under section 427 of the CrPC to allow concurrent running of substantive sentences, considering the petitioner's financial constraints and the total length of sentenc....
As per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, in normal course a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, if sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment comm....
Concurrent running of sentences is permissible under Section 427 Cr.P.C. for substantive sentences only, not for default sentences.
The court can exercise discretion under Section 427 CrPC to allow concurrent sentences to prevent excessive punishment and ensure justice.
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
