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.

JUDGMENT

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and it may kindly be ordered to execute the sentences concurrently in pursuance of impugned order dated 06.02.2020, 28.02.2020 and 15.09.2020 passed by learned ACJM/JM Court, Suratgarh in Criminal case no. 842/2012, 121/2014 and 385/2018 respectively with already ordered to run concurrently four case bearing criminal case no. (635/2012, 929/2012, 427/2012 and 767/2012) by the Hon'ble court vide its order dated 21.01.2021 (Annexure-1) in S.B. Criminal Misc. petition No.-947/2020."

3. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that various complaints were filed by the different complainants indifferent criminal cases in connection with dishonor of the cheques in question for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned court below convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide orders dated 06.02.2020, 28.02.2020 and 15.09.2020 passed by learned ACJM/JM Court, Suratgarh in Criminal case no. 842/2012, 121/2014 and 385/2018 respectively.

4. 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."

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 Secre