Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Aarif Khan @ Munder S/o Sh. Islamo @ Salamudeen Kaaji - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936 of 2021
Decided On : 28-03-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - sections 457, 380 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment - Theft in dwelling house - Saving of inherent powers of High Court - Whether inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 stand repelled when revisional power under Section 397 overlaps - Rejecting argument - Court said that opening words of Section 482 contradict this contention because nothing in code- Not even Section 397 - can affect amplitude of inherent powers preserved in so many terms by language of Section 482 – Held, Court does not wish to enter into technicality- Precedent law of present revision petitions deserve to be disposed of - In view of above, present petitions are disposed of and it is ordered that substantive sentences awarded to petitioner in above referred cases would run concurrently- However, petitioner will have to serve default sentences as provisions of do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation - Which petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be affected by this direction and if petitioner has not paid fine/compensation as directed by trial-Courts said sentences would run consecutively - Needless to say, if petitioner pays fine/compensation now, Court is not required to undergo default sentences- Ordered Accordingly.
ORDER :
1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the order dated 05.05.2018 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.251/2017 Anup Khati @ Kaliya Vs. State of Rajasthan. The said order dated 05.05.2018 reads as follows:-
The facts necessary for disposal of the present misc. petition are that the petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced by the trial court for the offences punishable under sections 457 and 380 IPC, details of which are given hereunder :
| S. No | Case No. | Court | Date of decision | Sentence default | Appeal |
| 1. | 924/12 | ACJM No. 3, Bikaner | 01.08.2013 | 457,380 of IPC 5 years SI Penalty 2000 in default of penalty of six months | Session Judge, Bikaner Appeal No. 148/13 Decision 18.12.13, Appeallate Court Sentence 4 years |
| 2. | 926/12 | ACJM No. 3, Bikaner | 3.12.13 | 457,380 of IPC 5 years SI Penalty 3000 in default of penalty of six months | Session Judge, Bikaner Appeal No. 2/14 Decision 19.06.14, Appeallate Court Sentence 4 years |
| 3. | 927/12 | ACJM No. 3, Bikaner | 15.2.14 | 457,380 of IPC 5 years SI Penalty 3000 in default of penalty of six months | Addl. Session Judge, No. 3 Bikaner Appeal No. 24/16 Decision 5.5.16, Appeallate Court Sentence 3 years 9 months SI |
| 4. | 990/12 | ACJM No. 3, Bikaner | 20.3.14 | 401 IPC 3 years RI penalty 2000 in default of penalty six months 457,380 of IPC 5 years SI Penalty 5000 in default of penalty of six months | Addl. Session Judge, No. 3 Bikaner Appeal No. 17/16 Decision 25.04.16, Appeallate Court Sentence 3 years 9 months SI |
| 5. | 991/12 | ACJM No. 3, Bikaner | 5.9.14 | 457,380 of IPC 5 years SI Penalty 5000 in default of penalty of six months | Addl. Session Judge, No. 3 Bikaner Appeal No. 25/16 Decision 5.5.16, Appeallate Court Sentence 3 years 9 months SI |
As the sentences awarded to the petitioner are in 5 different cases, he is being made to suffer sentences one after another (consecutively), therefore, the present petitions have been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer that a direction needs to be issued that the petitioner’s sentences should run concurrently. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner in all the matters are of similar nature and all the cases are of years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
It is argued that going by the sentence calculation, which has been awarded to the petitioner would effectively mean that the total length of sentences in aggregate would be around 19 years and 3 months. It is also argued that the petitioner has already served more than seven years' sentence out of total sentence of 19 years and 3 months.
It is further argued that though the petitioner was awarded those sentences in different cases but all the cases are of similar nature.
It is also averred t
The court can exercise discretion under Section 427 CrPC to allow concurrent sentences to prevent excessive punishment and ensure justice.
Concurrent running of sentences is permissible under Section 427 Cr.P.C. for substantive sentences only, not for default sentences.
: Life convicts have been held entitled to benefit of subsequent sentence, being run concurrently, be it life term or of any lesser term then the different yardstick cannot be applied for those perso....
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....
provisions of section 427 of the CrPC do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation
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 established that under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C., it can direct sentences to run concurrently to prevent excessive imprisonment and ensure justice.
The High Court has the authority to direct sentences from separate convictions to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring fair treatment in sentencing.
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
