Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
Kamal Kumar Mina – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4283/2021
Decided On : 29-04-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - 138 Negotiable Instruments Act - The court discussed the application of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its interpretation in the context of the petitioner's multiple convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court considered the argument for concurrent sentencing based on previous judgments but ultimately dismissed the petitions, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted in five different cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for separate transactions. The petitioner sought concurrent sentencing based on financial hardship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's convictions did not arise from a single transaction and therefore, the benefit of concurrent sentencing under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. was not applicable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to concurrent sentencing under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. for multiple convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's convictions were based on different transactions and therefore, the benefit of concurrent sentencing did not apply.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were dismissed.
ORDER
1. Since these five Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions arise out of same offence pertaining for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, which are being decided by this common order.
2. The learned trial Court passed the following orders:-
Sr.No. | Case No. and Court | Offence under Section | Date Of judgment and sentence |
1. | Special Judicial Magistrate Negotiable Instrument Act Cases No.2 Kota CIS No.22898/2016 | 138 Negotiable Instruments Act | 16.03.2020 2 years Simple Imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- in default to further undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment |
2. | Special Judicial Magistrate Negotiable Instrument Act Cases No.2 Kota CIS No.34118/2014 Case No.791/2016 | 138 Negotiable Instruments Act | 15.06.2019 1 year Simple Imprisonment compensation of Rs. 11,45,000/- in default to further undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment |
3. | Special Judicial Magistrate Negotiable Instrument Act Cases No.2 Kota CIS No.1326/2017 Case No.791/2016 | 138 Negotiable Instruments Act | 15.06.2019 1 year Simple Imprisonment to pay compensation Rs. 1,60,000/- in default to further undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment |
4. | Special Judicial Magistrate Negotiable Instrument Act Cases No.2 Kota CIS No.200889/2016 case | 138 Negotiable Instruments Act | 25.01.2018 1 year 6 months Simple Imprisonment to pay compensation Rs. 7,50,000/- in default to further undergo 4 months Simple Imprisonment |
5. | Special Judicial Magistrate Negotiable Instrument Act Cases No.2 Kota CIS No.3774/2016 | 138 Negotiable Instruments Act | 25.01.2019 6 Months Simple Imprisonment to pay compensation Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to further undergo 1 months Simple Imprisonment |
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act in difference 5 cases on different dates. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a poor person and has no source of income. The economic condition of the family of petitioner is not sound. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per Section 427 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, when a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, the court has power to direct for subsequent sentence, to run concurrently. So, sentence awarded to the petitioner be directed to run concurrently.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner have placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) State Of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal reported in 2009 R.C.C. (SC) 549; (2) Pankaj Soni Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2010(2) R.C.C. 662; (3) Mahavir Vs. State Of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (3) WLC (Raj.) 58 and (4) Ajay @ Harendra Vs. State Of Rajasthan reported in 2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 542.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that sentence awarded to the petitioner cannot be ordered to run concurrently because these transactions are not based on a single transaction. Leaned counsel for the respondents further submitted that conviction awarded in five cases, complainants are separate. Petitioner had taken amount from complainants separately. So, conviction of the petitioner cannot be ordered to run concurrently.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. K. Bansal Vs. State Of Haryana & Ors. etc.etc. In Criminal Appeal Nos.836-851/2013 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl) Nos. 10023-10038/2011) decided on 05.07.2013.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the impugned orders.
8. Section 427 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence -(1) When a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment f
The main legal point established in the judgment is that concurrent sentencing under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. is not applicable when the convictions arise from different transactions.
The court has the power to order concurrent sentences under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially when the convictions pertain to the same offence within a short span of time.
The court established that discretion under Section 427 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to allow concurrent sentences to prevent injustice.
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 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 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 established that under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C., it can direct sentences to run concurrently to prevent excessive imprisonment 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
