Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Prem Singh @ Prem Chand @ Chittarmal – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1418 of 2017
Decided On : 17-01-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 and Section 427 - Concurrent sentences - Petitioner sought to have sentences from two criminal cases run concurrently - Court examined the provisions of Section 427 and the inherent powers under Section 482 - Noted that both convictions occurred within a year and the petitioner had served over six years - Court allowed the application for concurrent sentences while clarifying that default sentences would run consecutively if fines were unpaid. (Paras 1, 12)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court emphasized that discretion under Section 427 must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of offences and circumstances of each case. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted in two separate criminal cases and sought to have the sentences run concurrently due to the nature of the offences and time served.
Findings of Court:
The court found it appropriate to allow the concurrent running of sentences to prevent miscarriage of justice, given the time already served by the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sentences from two different cases could be ordered to run concurrently under Section 427 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be invoked to ensure justice, particularly when the petitioner had already served a significant portion of the sentence.
Result: Application allowed; sentences to run concurrently.
ORDER :
1. Instant matter comes up on an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 427 Cr.P.C with the prayer that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner in Criminal Case NO. 377/2015 (130/2015)(296/1998) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur, District Bhilwara vide judgment dated 29.11.2016 and in Criminal Case No. 05/2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan vide judgment dated 02.12.2016 may be ordered to run concurrently.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that total two cases were registered against the petitioner. In Criminal case No. 377/2015, the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 420, 468, 473 IPC and sentenced to 07 years RI alongwith fine. Against the said judgment, petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara and same was dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2017 against which, petitioner has filed revision Petition No. 1418/2017. In another Criminal case No. 05/2014, the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 420, 419, 406, 120B IPC and sentenced to 05 years R.I alongwith fine.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maximum term of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in both the cases is 07 years alognwith fine. As per custody certificate of the petitioner, so far the petitioner has undergone imprisonment of 06 years 03 months as on 17.01.2024, therefore, it is prayed that since the offence relates to same period in different cases, therefore, it is a fit case, wherein the Court may exercise inherent powers for invoking Section 427 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anup Khati @ Kaliya Khati v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 (3) Cri.LR (Raj) 1246 and Rajender v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 (2) Cri.LR (Raj) 561.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has not disputed the custody certificate and other details mentioned therein. However, learned Public Prosecutor has in general opposed the prayer to invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. in the matter.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and considered the provisions envisaged under Section 427 Cr.P.C.
6. Before adverting to consider the prayer of the petitioner, it would be just and proper to examine rigor of Section 427 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.”
7. It is noteworthy that conviction in both the cases against the petitioner was recorded within a span of one year and he has already undergone sentence for about three years, therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction enshrined under Section 482 Cr.P.C to do substantial justice.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana reported in 2013 (7) SCC 211] examined the nature of power available to the Court under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. to direct sentences to run
The court can exercise discretion under Section 427 Cr.P.C. to order concurrent sentences when justice requires, especially if the offender has served a significant portion of their sentence.
The court affirmed that under Section 427 CrPC, sentences for multiple convictions may run concurrently unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise.
The court may direct sentences to run concurrently under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., considering the nature of offenses and the defendant's likelihood of reform.
Consecutive sentences are standard unless a court explicitly directs otherwise; offenses must be distinct for concurrent sentencing to apply.
The court clarified that unless explicitly ordered, sentences from multiple convictions run consecutively under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., accommodating set-off for time served, emphasizing the legislat....
The court may exercise discretion under Section 427 Cr.P.C. to allow concurrent sentences to meet the ends of justice, while default sentences for non-payment of fines must run consecutively.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary powers of the criminal courts in applying Section 427 Cr.P.C. and determining the concurrent running of sentences in multiple cas....
Prior term sentences must be served before subsequent life sentence under Section 427(1) CrPC unless court directs concurrency; Section 427(2) applies only when prior sentence is life imprisonment.
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
