Ajay Raj @ Rahul Raj Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5154 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 664/2022
Ajay Raj @ Rahul Raj Son Of Shri Rambali @ Ram Pravesh, Aged
About 35 Years, Resident Of Harbanspur Mandwa, Police Station
Hilsa, District Nalanda (Bihar) (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur)
                                                                 ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
                                                               ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 665/2022 Ajay Raj @ Rahul Raj Son Of Shri Rambali @ Ram Pravesh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Harbanspur Mandwa, Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda (Bihar) (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 666/2022 Ajay Raj @ Rahul Raj Son Of Shri Rambali @ Ram Pravesh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Harbanspur Mandwa, Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda (Bihar) (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 712/2022 Ajay Raj @ Rahul Raj Son Of Shri Rambali @ Ram Pravesh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Harbanspur Mandwa, Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda (Bihar) (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

                                                               ----Respondent





                                          (2 of 7)                  [CRLR-664/2022]

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 713/2022 Ajay Raj @ Rahul Raj Son Of Shri Rambali @ Ram Pravesh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Harbanspur Mandwa, Police Station Hilsa, District Naland (Bihar) (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 714/2022 Ajay Raj @ Rahul Raj Son Of Shri Rambali @ Ram Pravesh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Harbanspur Mandwa, Police Station Hilsa, District Malanda (Bihar) (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 715/2022 Ajay Raj @ Rahul Raj Son Of Shri Rambali @ Ram Pravesh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Harbanspur Mandwa, Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda (Bihar) (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ganga Ram Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Prakash Sharma, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order

27/07/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties on application

Nos.149/2022, 150/2022, 151/2022, 158/2022, 159/2022,

160/2022 & 162/2022 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3 of 7) [CRLR-664/2022]

For the reasons stated in the above applications, the same

are allowed. The delay in filing the revision petitions is condoned.

Since all these revision petitions relate to one accused-

petitioner, hence with the consent of learned counsel for the

parties, the arguments have been heard together and they are

being decided by this common order.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

"The complainants submitted complaints against the

petitioner to the Magistrate concerned, which were sent for

investigation to the police station concerned U/s. 156(3) CrPC,

whereupon FIRs were registered and investigation was

commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the

charge sheet against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter the

charges were framed against the petitioner, who denied for the

same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the statements were

recorded and after conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the

accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 420/120-B,

406 and 406/120-B IPC in different cases and sentenced him as

under:

U/s. 420 IPC: To undergo 2 year and 6 months' RI and

to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of

fine, to further undergo 4 days' RI.

U/s. 420/120-B IPC: To undergo 2 year and 6 months'

RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of

payment of fine, to further undergo 4 days' RI.

(4 of 7) [CRLR-664/2022]

U/s. 406 IPC: To undergo 2 year and 6 months' RI and

to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of

fine, to further undergo 4 days' RI.

U/s. 406/120-B IPC: To undergo 2 year and 6 months'

RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of

payment of fine, to further undergo 4 days' RI.

Thereafter the petitioner filed the appeals against the orders

passed in different cases. The appellate Court vide different orders

passed in different cases dismissed the appeals and affirmed the

orders passed by the trial Court. Hence these revision petitions

have been filed by the accused petitioner.

Before going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for

the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards

Section 427 CrPC, which is reproduced as under:

                 "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 directed 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, while undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to

(5 of 7) [CRLR-664/2022]

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 subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence."

He has further drawn the attention of this Court on the

judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ramesh Chilwal @ Bombayya Versus State of Uttarakhand,

reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 735; judgment of this Court

delivered in the case of Shakir Versus State of Rajasthan, reported

in 2011 (2) WLC (Raj.) 382; and Laxminarain Sain Versus State of

Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2011 (1) WLC Raj. Page 656 as well

as the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court reported in

2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 542 and requested that in the light of the

aforesaid judgments, the sentence awarded to the petitioner by

the trial Court vide order dated 08.05.2015 passed in Cr. Case No.

1296/2015; Cr. Case No. 1291/2015; Cr. Case No. 1289/2015; Cr.

Case No. 1304/2015; Cr. Case No. 1290/2015; Cr. Case No.

1274/2015 and Cr. Case No. 1295/2015 which were subsequently

affirmed by the appellate Court, be directed to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that

similarly situated co-accused- Buddhraj Singh has already been

granted same relief, as prayed by the present petitioner herein, by

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision

Petition No.1364/2015, Buddhraj Singh Vs. The State of

(6 of 7) [CRLR-664/2022]

Rajasthan, along with connected matters, decided vide order

dated 03.11.2015, wherein it has been directed that the sentences

imposed upon the petitioner shall run concurrently with the

substantive sentences imposed upon him.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has

opposed the same.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

perused the relevant material on record.

It is apparent from the provision of Section 427 Cr.P.C. that

the Court may direct subsequent sentences shall run concurrently

with the previous sentence. But such a direction may be given by

the Court after taking into consideration the facts of the case while

passing the subsequent sentences.

Thus, following the law laid down in the above cited cases

and taking into consideration the facts of the cases in hand

against the petitioner as also the quantum of cumulated sentences

passed against him in these cases, I deem it just and proper to

allow these revision petitions.

Consequently, the revision petitions are hereby allowed and

it is directed that the sentences imposed upon the petitioner by

the trial Court vide judgment/order dated 08.05.2015 passed in all

the aforesaid cases namely Cr. Case No. 1296/2015; Cr. Case No.

1291/2015; Cr. Case No. 1289/2015; Cr. Case No. 1304/2015; Cr.

Case No. 1290/2015; Cr. Case No. 1274/2015 and Cr. Case No.

1295/2015 shall run concurrently with the substantive sentences

imposed upon him. However, the sentences imposed upon the

petitioner in default of payment of fine in all these cases shall

(7 of 7) [CRLR-664/2022]

remain intact and shall be undergone by him separately if the

fines are not deposited. The sentences so modified shall be given

effect to by the concerned Court and the jail authorities.

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

DANISH USMANI /60-66

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)