IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Jitendra S/o Sh. Onkar Lal Mali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2600 of 2022
Decided on : 09-12-2022
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Concurrent Running of Sentences - Section 138 of N.I. Act - 427 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks concurrent running of sentences awarded in 32 cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner's financial difficulties led to bounced cheques and subsequent convictions. The total sentences amount to around 35 years, with the petitioner already serving 5 years and 8 months.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the petitioner's prolonged sentences and the precedent of allowing concurrent sentences to prevent injustice. The court allowed concurrent running of substantive sentences but not default sentences, in line with Section 427 of the Cr.P.C.
Issues: Concurrent running of sentences under Section 138 of N.I. Act, application of Section 427 Cr.P.C., and the petitioner's financial circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can allow concurrent running of sentences to prevent injustice, considering the total duration of sentences and the petitioner's circumstances, in line with Section 427 of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed for concurrent running of substantive sentences, but not default sentences, in accordance with Section 427 of the Cr.P.C.
ORDER :
1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner claiming the following relief:
“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the sentence awarded by the trial court vide judgment dated 15.11.2021 in criminal regular case no.236/2016 and judgment dated 14.09.2021 in criminal regular case no.210/2016 and in criminal regular case no.42/2012 judgment dated 23.02.2022 under Section 138 of N.I. Act may kindly be directed to run the substantive sentence of the subsequent criminal original case no.236/2016 vide judgment dated 15.11.2021 concurrently.”
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 granted to petitioner to take recourse to lawful remedy in case State Authorities decline the representation.”
3. 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.
4. 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., invoke Sec
Ammavasai & Anr. vs. Inspector of Police & Ors.
AI
The court can allow concurrent running of sentences to prevent injustice, considering the total duration of sentences and the petitioner's circumstances, in line with Section 427 of the Cr.P.C.
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 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 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....
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
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.
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.
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.