[2025:RJ-JD:36026]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6475/2025 Prakash Chandra Nangarchi S/o Late Goverdhan Lal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o House No. 1-G-5, Housingh Board Gandhinagar, Sector No.4, Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemendra Singh Sever For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

12/08/2025

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has been convicted in many cases for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in different Courts situated at Udaipur:

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 and sentences passed by the learned trial court. He submits that the learned trial court failed to exercise its discretion within the ambit of Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the consequence of serving sentence by the petitioner one after the other that is to say consecutive sentence would be that he has to undergo a total term of imprisonment of 02 years and 04 months in respect of aforementioned cases, which would cause serious miscarriage of justice. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i). Iqram vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Reported in (2023) 3 SCC 184 (ii). Gopal Das vs State of Delhi reported in AIR 1978 Delhi 138

5. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate 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-