Trilok Chand Sharma S/O Hargovind ... vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5692 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:27616]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7514/2019

Trilok Chand Sharma S/o Hargovind Sharma B/c Brahmin, R/o
Buddh Ki Hat, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur. (Accused Petitioner
At Present Confined In Central Jail, Bharatpur)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Fauzdar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Judgment

07/10/2023

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for offence

punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act in seven cases vide

separate judgments, the details whereof are mentioned as below:-

S. Case       Number Date     of Details                         of Details      of
No. and Title        Judgment    Sentence                           Appeal
                     and     the
                     name     of
                     Court
                     passing the
                     judgment

1. Criminal Case 28.05.2018, 2 Years' SI Appeal No.4489/2013 passed by with fine of No.41/2018, (Mohankaram Ld. ACJM Rs.5,00,000/- dismissed vide Chand Gaur vs No.4, ,in default of judgment Trilok Chand Bharatpur payment of dated Sharma) fine, to 06.02.2019, further passed by Ld.

                                  undergo       3 Addl Sessions
                                  months'         Judge    No.3,
                                  additional SI Bharatpur



 [2023:RJ-JP:27616]                   (2 of 6)                    [CRLMP-7514/2019]

2. Criminal Case 26.06.2015 6 Months' RI Appeal No.112/2012 passed by with fine of No.3/2018, (Kamal Nayan Ld. ACJM Rs.6,00,000/- dismissed vide Sharma vs No.4, , in default of judgment Trilok Chand Bharatpur payment of dated Sharma) fine, to 19.02.2018 by further Ld. Addl.

                                  undergo       6 Sessions Judge
                                  months'         No.3,
                                  additional SI Bharatpur

3. Criminal Case 31.07.2018, 2 Years' RI Criminal No.250/2016 passed by with fine of Appeal (Abhinandan Ld. ACJM Rs.2,81,250/- No.21/2019, Mathur vs Trilok No.4, , in default of dismissed vide Chand Sharma) Bharatpur payment of judgment fine to dated undergo 1 25.03.2019 by month's Ld. Addl.

additional SI Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Bharatpur

4. Criminal Case 24.07.2018 1 year's SI Criminal No.593/2014 passed by with fine of Appeal (Mohan Ld. ACJM Rs.1,87,500/- No.22/2019, Goswami vs No.4, , in default of dismissed vide Trilok Chand Bharatpur payment of judgment Sharma) fine to further dated undergo 1 25.03.2019 by month's Ld. Addl.

additional SI Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Bharatpur

5. Criminal Case 12.10.2018 2 Years' RI Criminal No.03/2016 passed by with fine of Appeal (Naveen Chand Ld. ACJM Rs.3,75,000/- No.105/2018, Sharma vs No.4, in default of dismissed vide Trilok Chand Bharatpur payment of judgment Sharma) fine to further dated undergo 3 29.03.2019 by months' Ld. Special additional SI Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur

6. Criminal Case 12.08.2016 6 Months' SI Criminal No.597/2015 passed by with fine of Appeal (292/2013) Ld. Judicial Rs.6,60,000/- No.29/2017, (Jawahar Lal vs Magistrate , in default of dismissed vide

[2023:RJ-JP:27616] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-7514/2019]

Trilok Chand No.3, payment of judgment Sharma) Bharatapur fine to further dated undergo 1 06.02.2019 by month's Ld. Addl.

additional SI Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur

7. Criminal Case 02.11.2017 10 months' SI Criminal No.935/2015 passed by with fine of Appeal (18/2013) Ld. Judicial Rs.6,00,000/- No.56/2017, Rajsingh vs Magistrate , in default of dismissed vide Trilok Chand No.3, payment of judgment Sharma Bharatpur fine, two dated months' 20.07.2019 by additional SI Ld. Addl.

Session Judge No.4, Bharatpur

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 while the petitioner

has been convicted and sentenced as above, he has already been

serving sentence and thus, the learned trial courts while passing

the orders on sentence, ought to have directed concurrent running

of these sentences. He submits that the learned trial courts were

very well aware of this fact as the petitioner was produced from

the jail for awarding the sentence. It is also submitted that earlier

also, the petitioner preferred a misc. petition (No.1851/2018)

under Section 482 Cr.P.C before this Court with the same relief of

concurrency of sentences passed against him in eight cases

involving offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the learned

[2023:RJ-JP:27616] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-7514/2019]

Coordinate Bench allowed the petition vide order dated

28.085.2019. He has placed reliance on Supreme Court judgment

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

[2023:RJ-JP:27616] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-7514/2019]

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

injustice.

9. In Arjun Ram vs State of Rajasthan : 2016 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.)

346, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that "to meet

the ends of justice, power under Section 482 can be exercised if

Court arrives at the conclusion that the Trial Court, Appellate

Court or the Revisional Court as the case may be, failed in

completing the circuit of justice while invoking/not invoking the

discretion vested with it as per Section 427 Cr.P.C.

[2023:RJ-JP:27616] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-7514/2019]

10. In the case of Madan Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B

Criminal Misc. Petition No.3560/2015, decided on 08.03.2017),

the learned Coordinate Bench directed the sentence to run

concurrently in five cases pertaining to the N.I. Act. This Court in

Madan Singh vs State of Rajasthan has placed reliance on "State

of Punjab vs Madan Lal : 2009 (5) SCC 238.

11. The petitioner herein is languishing in jail since 07.11.2017

and in none of the cases, the provisions of Section 427 of Cr.P.C.

was taken note of by the courts below and in view of the law laid

down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs

Madan Lal (supra), I deem it proper to allow the instant criminal

misc. petition and accordingly it is hereby directed that the

sentences passed in all the aforesaid criminal cases would run

concurrently. However, the petitioner would be required to pay

the fine amount or suffer sentence in lieu of non-deposit of fine

amount. If the petitioner has undergone the sentence and

sentence in lieu of default of fine, he be released forthwith.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

Sudhir Asopa/16

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)