Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 27202
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
VIKAS KUMAR @ VICKY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMP / 6555 / 2023
Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri, Mr. Mahipal Bishoni, PP
Sentences for offences arising from a single transaction should run concurrently, emphasizing judicial discretion in such matters.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 31 - Concurrent sentences - Petitioner sought modification of sentences to run concurrently - Court has discretionary powers to allow concurrent sentences when offences arise from a single transaction - Relevant case law supports this principle. (Paras 8-11)
(B) Discretion of Court - The court must consider the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the case when deciding on concurrent sentences. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to modify sentences from two criminal cases to run concurrently, having served a significant portion of his sentence. (Para 1)
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition, ordering that the sentences run concurrently, considering the petitioner’s time served and the nature of the offences. (Para 12)
Issues: The main issue was whether the sentences from two cases could be modified to run concurrently based on the single transaction rule. (Para 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that sentences for offences arising from a single transaction should run concurrently, emphasizing the discretion of the court in such matters. (Paras 10-11)
Result: The Misc. Petition is allowed, and sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
Order
03/01/2024
1. The instant Misc. Petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner seeking following prayer:-
“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the petition under Section 482 preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed in toto and sentence awarded vide order dated 05.07.2018 passed in criminal case no.687/2017 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar District Hanumangarh and order dated 29.06.2022 passed in criminal case no.721/2016 (CIS No.848/2016) by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nohar District Hanumangarh modified by the order dated 27.06.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge no.2, Nohar, District Haunmangarh in appeal no.35/2023 may kindgly be ordered to run concurrently”
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material as made available to this Court.
3. It is felt that the petitioner has served a major part of sentence. Since he is behind the bars for a long. This Court has discretionary powers to pass an order with regard to running of sentence concurrently with the previous sentences. In this regard this Court; while dealing with similar issue in the matter of Sohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State Of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.13/2023 decided on 25.05.2023) has passed a detailed order.
The relevant part of the same is being reproduced as under:-
8. A perusal of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code reveals that it refers to the jurisdiction of court to impose punishment when the accused is found guilty for two or more offences during a single trial. Section 31 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced below for ready reference:-
“31. Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial.— (1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.
(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court: Provided that—
(a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than fourteen years;
(b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence.
(3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence.”
9. Section 31 of Cr.P.C. empowers the trial Court with the discretion to determine that sentences for two or more offences passed in one trial would run simultaneously or consequently, depending on the nature of the offences and any aggravating or mitigating factors that may be present. However, this discretion must be used while taking into account the type of offence committed and the facts & circumstances of the case. Hon’ble the Apex Court has propounded the law in this context through a plethora of pronouncements and the settled legal position on this topic is vital to discuss here.
10. In Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs reported in (1988) 4 SCC 183, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has propounded the fundamental principle that convictions resulting from a single transaction justify running of the sentences concurrently. The relevant paragraph of the aforesai
