Sentences for separate offences arising from different transactions cannot run concurrently as per established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuance of an appropriate order or directions to the respondents that the sentence awarded to the petitioner in different cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“in short NI Act) be ordered to run concurrently. It has been asserted that the petitioner was facing the trials in different cases registered against him under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, District Mandi (H.P) and in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla (H.P), respectively and after conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted by the respective Courts. The details of the cases are as under: -

2. The petitioner did not assail the judgments passed by different Courts, and they have attained finality. The petitioner has completed the sentence mentioned in the above table in Serial Nos 1, 2, 4 & 5, and the remaining sentence as imposed by the Court below is required to be completed as per the warrant of imprisonment issued by the concerned Court. The petitioner was in the business of transportation, sale and purchase of Anardana. He could not pay the money because he did not receive it from the buyers/traders. The indefinite incarceration of the petitioner would minimise his chances of earning money. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the sentences of imprisonment awarded by different Courts be ordered to run concurrently.

3. The State has opposed the present petition by filing a reply asserting that the sentences are to be executed as per the warrant issued by the competent Court of law. The petitioner was convicted by different Courts in seven different cases. The petitioner has completed the sentence in cases mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 and 2, and he is undergoing the sentence mentioned at Serial No.3. The sentences in the other cases will commence after the completion of the sentence in the earlier case.

4. I have heard Mr. Devinder K. Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State.

5. Mr. Devinder K. Sharma, learned vice counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court has power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to order that the sentences imposed by the Courts in different cases be ordered to run concurrently. The Court had already ordered the concurrent running of the sentences in Cr.MMO No.113 of 2023 titled Mohar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 02.11.2023 & Cr.MMO No.107 of 2024, tit