Rajasthan High Court
Narendra Kumar Sahu S/O Sh. Mohanlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:10202) on 28 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:10202]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 891/2024
Narendra Kumar Sahu S/o Sh. Mohanlal, Proprietor M/s Bajrang
Traders, R/o Near Radha Krishna Temple Dharnawada Crossing,
Main Bazar, Ward No. 4, Chhabra, Tehsil Chhabra, Distt. Baran.
(Petitioner Is Presently Confined At Sub Jail Chhabra, Distt.
Baran)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 892/2024
Narendra Kumar Sahu S/o Sh. Mohanlal, Proprietor M/s Bajrang
Traders, R/o Near Radha Krishna Temple Dharnawada Crossing,
Main Bazar, Ward No. 4, Chhabra, Tehsil Chhabra, Distt. Baran.
(Petitioner Is Presently Confined At Sub Jail Chhabra, Distt.
Baran)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 893/2024
Narendra Kumar Sahu S/o Sh. Mohanlal, Proprietor M/s Bajrang
Traders, R/o Near Radha Krishna Temple Dharnawada Crossing,
Main Bazar, Ward No. 4, Chhabra, Tehsil Chhabra, Distt. Baran.
(Petitioner Is Presently Confined At Sub Jail Chhabra, Distt.
Baran)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 894/2024
Narendra Kumar Sahu S/o Sh. Mohanlal, Proprietor M/s Bajrang
Traders, R/o Near Radha Krishna Temple Dharnawada Crossing,
Main Bazar, Ward No. 4, Chhabra, Tehsil Chhabra, Distt. Baran.
[2024:RJ-JP:10202] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-891/2024]
(Petitioner Is Presently Confined At Sub Jail Chhabra, Distt.
Baran)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Rajawat for
Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
28/02/2024
1. Heard.
2. By way of these four misc. petitions under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that the sentences awarded to
him in the four following cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
may be ordered to run concurrently as he is being made to suffer
sentences one after another (consecutively):-
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 18.02.2020, 1 Year's SI Appeal
No.154/2018 passed by with fine of No.24/2020
(Shashikant Ld. ACJM, Rs.4,00,000/- dismissed vide
Bagari vs Chhabra, ,in default of judgment
Narendra Sahu) Baran payment of dated
fine, to 24.08.2023,
further passed by Ld.
undergo 3 Addl Sessions ,
months' Chhabra,
additional SI Barab
[2024:RJ-JP:10202] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-891/2024]
2. Criminal Case 04.06.2022, 1 Year's SI XX
No.352/2021 passed by with fine of
(Poonam Chand Ld. ACJM Rs3,94,000/-,
vs Narendra No.2, in default of
Kumar Sahu) Chhabra, payment of
Baran fine, to
further
undergo 2
months'
additional SI
3. Criminal Case 01.08.2022, 1 Year's SI XX
No.546/2016 passed by with fine of
(Poonam Chand Ld. ACJM Rs.2,05,650/-
vs Narendra No.1, ,in default of
Kumar Sahu) Chhabra, payment of
Baran fine, to
further
undergo 2
months'
additional SI
4. Criminal Case 02.08.2022, 1 Year's SI XX
No.457/2021 passed by with fine of
(Om Prakash Ld. ACJM Rs.3,80,200/-
Sharma vs No.2, ,in default of
Narendra Kumar Chhabra, payment of
Sahu) Baran fine, to
further
undergo 2
months'
additional SI
3. Instead of filing one criminal petition seeking direction for
concurrent sentences passed in the aforesaid complaint cases
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the petitioner has filed four
separate misc. petitions with similar relief. Be that as it may. All
these petitions are decided by this common order.
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
[2024:RJ-JP:10202] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-891/2024]
the orders on sentence, ought to have directed concurrent running
of these sentences. He submits that vide order dated 28.05.2019
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. petition No.1851/2018, a Coordinate
Bench of this Court has also granted similar relief concurrency of
sentences passed against the petitioner therein in eight cases for
offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
5. He has placed reliance judgment passed in the case of
"Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.2224/2015), decided on 17.02.2017 and "Arjun Ram
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2016 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346.
6. 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.
7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and have gone through the material available on record.
8. 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
[2024:RJ-JP:10202] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-891/2024]
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."
9. 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.
10. 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
[2024:RJ-JP:10202] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-891/2024]
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.
11. 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. In the case of
Madan Singh vs State of Rajasthan, reliance has been placed on
Supreme Court judgment in the case of "State of Punjab vs Madan
Lal : 2009 (5) SCC 238.
12. The petitioner herein is languishing in jail in connection with
his conviction in the aforesaid four cases and in none of the cases,
the provisions of Section 427 of Cr.P.C. was taken note of by the
courts below. Thus, viewed the instant case in light of the law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above-referred cases, 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 as the provisions of
Section 427 Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction for concurrent
running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in
default of payment of fine/compensation. The sentences, which
the petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of payment
of fine/compensation as directed by the trial courts, would run
consecutively. If the petitioner has undergone the sentence and
[2024:RJ-JP:10202] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-891/2024]
sentence in lieu of default of fine, he be released forthwith, if not
warranted in any other case.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
80-83-Sudhir/Nirmala
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
