[2026:RJ-JD:3268]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9277/2025 Sharif Mohammad (Deshwali) S/o Kadir Mohammad, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Dhamnikheda Tehsil Bhadesar District Chittorgarh Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Ghanshyam Teli S/o Satyanarayan, Proprietor Sangam Enterprises Post Sava Thana Shambupura Tehsil And District Chittorgarh Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

19/01/2026

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act in two cases vide separate judgments, the details whereof are mentioned as below:-

3. By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed that the sentences (referred to above) awarded to him may be ordered to run concurrently.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in jail in relation to his above conviction in cases under Section 138 N.I. Act. He submits that the learned trial courts while passing the orders on sentence, ought to have directed concurrent running of sentences. He has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gopal Das vs State of Delhi (AIR 1978 Delhi 138) and this Court's judgment in the case of Madan Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition 3560/2015, decided on 08.03.2017).

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the learned trial courts passed the order by adequate application of mind and as such, no indulgence of this Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required in the instant case.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

7. Section 427 Cr.P.C. provides for sentence on offender who has already been sentenced for another offence. The same is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready-reference:-

" 427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence :- (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:

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."

8. As per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, in normal course a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, if sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, but the court in its discretion based on settled principles may direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. While exercising such discretion, the trial court, appellate court or revisional court, as the case may be, keep in mind several factors. In the instant case, the learned trial courts did not exercise its discretion with respect to concurrency of sentences and thus, there is absolutely non-consideration of the issue about invoking this discretion which is causing great injust