Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalit Maheshwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 14 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16438 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
LALIT MAHESHWARI S/O LATE SHRI BRIJ MOHAN
MAHESHWARI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O OPPOSITE OLD S.S. PALACE NEAR KAKA
SAHAB SHINDE BADA HANUMAN CHAURAHA
LASHKAR GWLAIOR AT PRESENT A-44 NEAR SEWER
NEW SHANTI NAGAR, GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A.R. SHIVHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH JAIL
SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL GWALIOR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred seeking
direction from this Court regarding running of the sentence/conviction for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner
concurrently.
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner had fairly submitted that the
petitioner had been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
for various periods in six matters, details of which is provided in para 04 of the
petition and maximum sentence is of one year RI. The said judgments in all the
six matters were passed on various dates in the year 2002 and from one month
after the date of first conviction i.e. 26.07.2023 the petitioner is under custody.
3. While placing reliance in the matter of Sher Singh Vs. State of M.P.
reported in (1989) JLJ 201 and in the matter of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. State of
M.P. & Anr. passed in M.Cr.C. No.1598/2009 on 18.03.2011 , it was
submitted that in similar set of facts full Bench of this Court as well as
coordinate Bench had held that High Court has power in appropriate cases to
entertain an application under Section 482 of the Code by invoking its inherent
powers at any time subsequent to the decision in a given case even if the trial
Court or the Appellate or Revisional Court has failed to exercise its discretion
under Section 427(1) of the Code. In the given facts and circumstances of the
case the sentences passed in all the matters can be directed to run concurrently.
4. It was thus, prayed that since all the matters pertains to dishonor of the
cheques and out of the six, four cases have been registered by same party, this
Court under inherent powers can very well direct the sentences to run
concurrently.
5. However, on the contrary, Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned counsel for the
State submits that Section 427 of Cr.P.C. provides that where a person is
already undergoing sentence of imprisonment his sentenced on a subsequent
conviction to imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the
imprisonment to which he has been previously sentence, unless the Court
directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous
sentence and since there is no direction of the Courts while convicting the
present petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act, therefore, now this Court has
no jurisdiction to direct the sentence to run concurrently in six distinct
offences. It was, thus, prayed that present petition being devoid of any
substance is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The full Bench of this Court in the matter of Sher Singh Vs. State of
M.P.(Supra) was dealing with a reference made by Single Bench of this Court
for following questions:-
(i) Whether the law laid down in A.S. Naidu's case (1975 Cri. L.J. 498)
(Madh Pra) still holds good?
(ii) Whether the High Court can entertain application under Section
427, Criminal Procedure Code?
(a) from accused who, while undergoing sentence of imprisonment was
sentenced on subsequent conviction to the imprisonment and whose
appeal/revision against the subsequent sentence stood disposed of
without any direction under Section 427, Criminal Procedure Code?
(b ) from accused who, while undergoing sentence of imprisonment,
was sentenced on subsequent conviction to the imprisonment without
any direction under Section 427 of the Code and does not file appeal
or revision against his subsequent sentence?
and in that regard, para 07 of such judgement the reference was answered
as follows:-
The reference is, therefore, answered by saying (i) that the decision of
this Court in A.S. Naidu Vs. State of M.P. (Supra) is no longer good
law to the extent it says that power under Section 427 (1) of the Code
can be exercised. by the trial, or appellate court at any stage at any
time even after decision on merits in the case but not under Section.
482 and the Court does not6 become functus officio. (ii) The High
Court has power in appropriate cases to entertain an application
under Section 482 of the Code by invoking its inherent powers at any
time subsequent to the decision in a given case even if the trial Court
or the appellate or revisional Court has failed to exercise its
discretion under Section 427 (1) of the Code. The case be now placed
before the single Bench for decision on merits.
8. In the light of the aforesaid answer to the reference, it was held by full
Bench that this Court in appropriate cases can entertain application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by invoking inherent powers at any time subsequent to
the decision in a given case even if the trial Court or the appellate or revisional
Court has failed to exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) of the Code,
which makes it clear that even after final disposal of the cases the inherent
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the provision of Section
427 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked.
9. The coordinate Bench in the matter of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. State of
M.P. & Anr.(Supra); which has referred the said judgment and certain other
judgments of Supreme Court as well as other High Courts, while invoking
inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. had directed that the sentences
awarded against the petitioner therein shall run concurrently, which were also
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
10. Herein the case, all the six matters in which the petitioner has been
convicted pertains to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the
maximum sentence wherein is one year RI. In two of the matters, the period of
sentence is six months and in another matters the period of sentence is three
months respectively. Out of the six cases, four cases had been registered by the
same party against the petitioner and only two cases had been registered by two
different persons. It is also observed that all the six matters have been decided
in the year 2023 and admittedly the petitioner is in jail since 23.07.2023, which is
approximately makes the period of custody of 10 months.
11. In the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in
view the nature of the offence, this Court is of the view that in the interest of
justice, it would be expedient to direct that all the sentences awarded in all the
six cases shall run concurrently.
12. The petition is hereby allowed and it is hereby directed that the jail
sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act vide judgments dated 23.06.23, 01.08.23, 05.10.23,
05.10.23, 13.10.23, 23.12.23 in case Nos. 1249/21, 2205/19,2819/19, 1958/21,
1980/21 and 2159/23 respectively shall run concurrently.
13. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands allowed
and disposed of.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
SHASHA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec09e066bc6b
JUDGE
58cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf27eaa2ce,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500EAADE1E0B3
NK
B8565CB3A7DC9F5CD048197DF0FF3149AE58,
cn=NEETU SHASHANK
Date: 2024.05.17 17:07:51 -07'00'
neetu
