Rajasthan High Court
Ramphool Khichi Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 July, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3526/2022
Ramphool Khichi Son Of Shri Sitaram Khichi, Resident Of
Tasvariya, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer Proprietor R.k. Textiles
Kekri, P.s. Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Pradeep Kumar Son Of Shri Manak Chand, Resident Of
Kekri, District Ajmer Proprietor Of M/s Manak Chand
Pradeep Kumar, Near Ganesh Piyau, Sadar Bazar Kekri,
District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. GS Rathore, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
15/07/2022
Heard the parties.
The petitioner was convicted in following seven cases and
was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to
pay different amount of fine separately in different cases. All the
judgments were passed on the same date i.e. 07.11.2020.
S.No. Case No. Court Date of Sentence Fine / Appeal
Decision Compensation
1 361/2013 ACJM No.1 07.11.2020 1 Year S.I. and 26/2020
Kekri fine of dismissed on
Rs.75000/- 1.12.2021
2 385/2013 ACJM No.1 07.11.2020 1 Year S.I. and 25/2020
Kekri fine of dismissed on
Rs.2,00,000/- 1.12.2021
3 387/2013 ACJM No.1 07.11.2020 1 Year S.I. and 20/2020
Kekri fine of dismissed on
Rs.75000/- 1.12.2021
4 362/2013 ACJM No.1 07.11.2020 1 Year S.I. and 23/2020
Kekri fine of dismissed on
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3526/2022]
Rs.75000/- 1.12.2021
5 627/2013 ACJM No.1 07.11.2020 1 Year S.I. and 24/2020
Kekri fine of dismissed on
Rs.75000/- 1.12.2021
6 629/2013 ACJM No.1 07.11.2020 1 Year S.I. and 21/2020
Kekri fine of dismissed on
Rs.75000/- 1.12.2021
7 634/2013 ACJM No.1 07.11.2020 1 Year S.I. and 22/2020
Kekri fine of dismissed on
Rs.75000/- 1.12.2021
The appeals preferred against the judgments were already
dismissed.
Now, the prayer is that in view of the provisions of Section
427 Cr.P.C. and judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.2883/2014, Rajendra Vs. State of
Rajasthan decided on 17.02.2017, the substantive sentence of
imprisonment should be directed to run concurrently.
Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
"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 imprison- ment 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.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3526/2022]
(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 con- currently with such
previous sentence."
In Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan, conviction was recorded
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in 32 cases.
This Court directed that the substantive sentences would run
concurrently and the fine as well as sentences in default of fine
would go as per the direction of the trial Judge. Section 427
Cr.P.C. does not cover the area of fine and default in payment of
fine.
Learned State Counsel submits that Section 427 Cr.P.C. is
applicable only in the matter of life imprisonment.
I do not find that the provision is applicable to the cases of
life imprisonment only and is not applicable in the matter of other
punishments of imprisonment.
Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed and the
petition stands disposed of.
Only substantive sentences of imprisonment would run
concurrently.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
Sunita/10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
