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, considering the petitioner's circumstances and the nature of the offenses.

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 humbly and respectfully prayed, that this petition of the petitioner may very kindly be allowed, sentence awarded vide order dated 27.07.2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 277/2011, 306/2011, 463/2011 and order dated 29.07.2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 471/2011, by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh shall be directed to run 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 Cr.P.C. 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.”

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 Cour