IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Navratan S/o Shri Poonam Chand – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7763 of 2022
Decided on : 13-12-2022
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Concurrent Running of Sentences - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - 427 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought concurrent running of sentences in 32 cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner's financial difficulties led to bounced cheques and subsequent convictions. The total sentence amounted to around 35 years, with the petitioner already serving over 5 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the legislative intent of section 427 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner's prolonged imprisonment. It referenced precedents to allow concurrent running of substantive sentences, excluding default sentences, to meet the ends of justice.
Issues: Concurrent running of sentences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the applicability of section 427 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed concurrent running of substantive sentences to prevent prolonged imprisonment, in line with the legislative intent of section 427 Cr.P.C. and relevant precedents.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the substantive sentences in the 32 cases were ordered to run concurrently, excluding default sentences.
JUDGMENT :
1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner claiming the following relief:
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:
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.”
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.
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 Section 427 Cr.P.C. and order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently.”
The Division Bench of this Court in Arjun Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.1912/2013 along w
Ammavasai & Anr. vs. Inspector of Police & Ors.
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 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 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 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 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 established that under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C., it can direct sentences to run concurrently to prevent excessive imprisonment and ensure justice.
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....
: 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....
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.