Rajasthan High Court
Kalusingh S/O Shri Mahadev vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:6246) on 5 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:6246]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3728/2023
Kalusingh S/o Shri Mahadev, Resident Of Village Khanpura, Tehsil
And District Ajmer, Currently Resident Of Hatundi Road, Naya
Badgaav, Post Makhupura Tehsil And District Ajmer, Police
Station Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (At Present Confined In Central
Jail , Ajmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Meena, for
Mr. Mahendra Shandliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
05/02/2024
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the
offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act in six 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 14.06.2019, 6 months' SI Appeal
No.1331/2017 passed by with fine of No.84/2019,
(CIS Ld. JM No.4, Rs.1,60,000/ dismissed vide
No.2506/2017) Ajmer - in default of judgment
(Shanti Devi vs. payment of dated
Kalu Singh) fine, to 11.04.2022,
further passed by Ld.
[2024:RJ-JP:6246] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3728/2023]
undergo one Addl Sessions
month's Judge No.5
additional SI Ajmer
2. Criminal Case 14.06.2019 6 months' SI Appeal
No.1332/2017 passed by with fine of No.83/2019
(Shanti Devi vs Ld. Judicial Rs.1,60,000/ dismissed vide
Kalu Singh)) Magistrate - in default of judgment
No.4, Ajmer payment of dated
fine, to 11.04.2022 by
further Ld. Addl.
undergo one Sessions Judge
month's No.5, Ajmer
additional SI
3. Criminal Case 03.06.2019 6 months' SI Criminal
No.1318/2017 passed by with fine of Appeal
(Shanti Devi vs Ld. JM No.4, Rs.3,40,000/ No.82/2019,
Kalu Singh) Ajmer in default of dismissed vide
payment of judgment
fine, to dated
further 11.04.2022 by
undergo one Ld. Addl.
month's Sessions Judge
additional SI No.5, Ajmer
4. Criminal Case 03.06.2019 6 months' SI Criminal
No.1330/2017 passed by with fine of Appeal
(Shanti Devi vs Ld. JM No.4, Rs.340000/- No.81/2019,
Kalu Singh) Ajmer in default of dismissed vide
payment of judgment
fine, to dated
further 11.04.2022 by
undergo one Ld. Addl.
month's Sessions Judge
additional SI No.5, Ajmer
5. Criminal Case 27.11.2018 6 months' SI Criminal
No.2688/2015 passed by with fine of Appeal
(Pankaj Garhwal Ld. Special Rs.750000/- No.56/2018,
vs Kalu Singh) Judicial in default of dismissed vide
Magistrate, payment of judgment
No.3, Ajmer fine, to dated
further 29.11.2021 by
undergo one Ld. Sessions
month's Judge No.2,
additional SI Ajmer
6. Criminal Case 05.12.2018 6 months' SI Criminal
No.208/2017 ( passed by with fine of Appeal
Fateh Singh vs Ld. Addl. Rs.275000/- No.01/2019,
Kalu Singh) Civil Judge in default of dismissed vide
and Judicial payment of judgment
Magistrate fine, to dated
No.5, Ajmer further 29.11.2021 by
[2024:RJ-JP:6246] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3728/2023]
undergo one Ld. Addl.
month's Sessions Judge
additional SI No.3,
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 the learned trial
courts while passing the orders on sentence, ought to have
directed concurrent running of sentences. He submits that the
learned trial court was very well aware of this fact as out of
aforesaid six cases, four cases have been disposed of by same
court below. 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.
[2024:RJ-JP:6246] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3728/2023]
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
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
[2024:RJ-JP:6246] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3728/2023]
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.
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. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the
case ad 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 shall run concurrently. However, the petitioner
[2024:RJ-JP:6246] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3728/2023]
would be required to pay the fine amount or else, he shall undergo
default sentence. 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/382
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
