Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Pankaj Joshi S/o Shri Santosh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2437 of 2023
Decided On : 04-04-2024
N.I. Act - Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 and CrPC, Section 427 - Sections 138 of the N.I. Act, Section 427 of the CrPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which penalizes dishonor of cheques, and Section 427 of the CrPC, which allows sentences for multiple offenses to run concurrently under certain circumstances. The court emphasized the need for justice and fairness in sentencing, particularly when the cumulative sentences could lead to excessive imprisonment. The interpretation of these sections influenced the court's decision to allow the petitioner’s sentences to run concurrently, while maintaining the separate penalties for default in payment of fines.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in 32 different cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing dishonored cheques. The cumulative sentences amounted to approximately 35 years, leading the petitioner to seek relief for the sentences to run concurrently due to the nature of the offenses and his financial difficulties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been in custody since 2011 and had served a significant portion of his sentences. It recognized the principle that similar offenses should not lead to disproportionately long imprisonment when the sentences could be ordered to run concurrently. The court also noted the lack of compelling reasons to impose consecutive sentences.
Issues: Whether the court could direct that the sentences awarded in multiple cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should run concurrently, and whether the provisions of Section 427 of the CrPC could be invoked in this context.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 427 of the CrPC, it has the discretion to order that sentences run concurrently to prevent injustice and ensure fair treatment. The court emphasized that the legislative intent is to allow concurrent sentences unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's request for the substantive sentences to run concurrently while clarifying that sentences related to default in payment of fines would remain consecutive. The decision was based on the principles established in previous case law and the need to meet the ends of justice.
ORDER :
1. By way of filing present misc. petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the sentence awarded by the trial Court vide judgments dated 23.09.2022, 10.10.2022, 11.10.2022, 11.10.2022, and 03.11.2022 in criminal original case no. 1866/2014, 1962/2014, 1960/2014, 1961/2014 and 01/2014(308/2014) and judgments dated 22.02.2023, 21.02.2023, 21.02.2023, 06.02.2023 and 21.02.2023 in Cr. Appeal No. 48/2022, 50/2022, 49/2022, 51/2022 and 59/2022 respectively under Sections 138 of N.I. Act may kindly be directed to run the substantive sentence concurrently.”
2. Succinctly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present misc. petition are that the petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced by different trial courts for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, details of which have been given hereunder:
| S. No. | Case No. | Name of Court | Date of decision | Sentence Fine/compensation |
| 1. | Regular Case No. 1866/2014 | CJM Churu | 23.09.22 | 1 year S.I. + 4,00,000/- fine + 1 Year S.I. in default of payment |
| (a) | Cr. Appeal No. 48/2022 | ADJ, Churu | 22.02.23 | 10 months S.I. + 4,00,000/- fine + 1 Months S.I. in default of payment |
| 2. | Regular Case No. 1962/2014 | CJM, Churu | 10.10.22 | 1 year S.I. + 5,00,000/- fine + 1 Year S.I. in default of payment |
| (a) | Cr. Appeal No.50/2022 | ADJ, Churu | 21.02.23 | 10 months S.I. + 5,00,000/- fine + 1 Months S.I. in default of payment |
| 3. | Regular Case No. 1960/2014 | CJM, Churu | 11.10.22 | 1 year S.I. + 13,00,000/ - fine + 1 Year S.I. in default of payment |
| (a) | Cr. Appeal No.49/2022 | ADJ, Churu | 21.02.23 | 10 months S.I. + 13,00,000/ - fine + 1 Months S.I. in default of payment |
| 4. | Regular Case No. 1961/2014 | CJM, Churu | 11.10.22 | 1 year S.I. + 13,00,000/ - fine + 1 Year S.I. in default of payment |
| a. | Cr. Appeal No. 51/2022 | ADJ, Churu | 06.02.23 | 10 months S.I. + 13,00,000/ - fine + 1 Months S.I. in default of payment |
| 5. | Regular Case No. 01/2014 (308/14) | AJM, Churu | 03.11.22 | 6 months S.I. + 1,30,000/- fine + 1 Months S.I. in default of payment. |
| (a) | Cr. Appeal No.59/2022 | ADJ, Churu | 21.02.23 | Dismissed and confirmed vide order dated 03.11.22
|
3. Learned counsel for the parties fairly concede that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of 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 cons
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 can exercise discretion under Section 427 CrPC to allow concurrent sentences to prevent excessive punishment and ensure justice.
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.
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....
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
