IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SH.IMLA Cr.MMO No.1191 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.03.2026 ____________________________________________________.___________________

Het Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

_______________________________t___________________________________________

For the Petitioner: Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate, as Legal Aid Counsel.

For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Anish Banshtu, CDeputy Advocate General, for State.

_______________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner that the sentences Hawarded to him, by the various Courts, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘the Act’) in 2 cases may kindly be ordered to be run concurrently.

2. Petitioner stands convicted in 2 cases, as detailed herein below :

Sh. Amboj Sood”

2. Criminal Appeal No.3 of Learned Additional Sessions

2025, titled as “Het Ram Vs. Judge, Kullu, District Kullu.

Sh. Amboj Sood”

3. Petitioner, who is currently 45 ye ars old, at whose behest the present petition is lodged, has already undergone substantive sentence of more than one year and in case his remaining sentence is to be counted, he has to undergo imprisonment for further two years in each case. u

4. Respoondent/State has filed communication dated 16.12.2025, issued under the signatures of Superintendent of Police, Kullu, enclosing therewith certificate of the period of detention (available at hpage No.85 of the paper-book), perusal whereof clearly reveals that gthe petitioner has undergone the total sentence period of 1 year and 18 idays, as on 12.12.2025 in Cr. Appeal No.2 of 2025. Further, as per the certificate of the period of detention, the petitioner is also convicted in another case i.e. Cr. Appeal No.3 of 2025, which sentence shall run after the expiry of previous sentence i.e. Cr. Appeal No.2 of 2025.

5. Prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has been opposed by respondents-State on the ground that convict Het Ram is undergoing substantive sentence in Cr. Appeal No.2 of 2025, however, sentence in default of fine/compensation of the second case i.e. Cr. Appeal No.3 of

2025 would only commence after the completion of sente.nce in Cr. Appeal No.2 of 2025. It has been submitted that since fine imposed by the learned Court below has not been deposited, petitioner is also required to undergo sentence in default.

6. Having heard learned counsefl representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that despite having undergone conviction otf more than one year (out of two years of sentence) in Cr. Appeal No.2 of 2025, petitioner shall have to undergo another sentence of 2 years in Cr. Appeal No.3 of 2025, if prayer made on his behalf through instant petition is not accepted.

7. With a view to substantiate the prayer of the petitioner, learned counsel representing petitioner invited attention of this Court to judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Versus Madan Lal, (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 238, V.K. Bansal versus HState of Haryana & Another, (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211, Anil Kumar Versus State of Punjab (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 53, Nagaraja Rao Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 302, Benson Versus State of Kerala, (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 307.

8. Reliance is also placed upon the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Iqram Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.2319 of 2022.. Relevant paragraphs of the case are reproduced, as under:

“7. The Division Bench of the High Court has come to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19732, each subsequent term of c