Rajasthan High Court
Ajeet Singh S/O Shri Ramkishan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:10687) on 1 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:10687]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 907/2024
Ajeet Singh S/o Shri Ramkishan, R/o 173, Boharon Ka Dand,
Tumbipura, Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur Rural (Raj) (At
Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agrawal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
01/03/2024
1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the sentences awarded to
the petitioner in three cases (Annexure-1 to Annexure-3 of the
misc. petition) may be ordered to run concurrently.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
stands convicted and sentenced in three cases, the details whereof
are produced hereinbelow:-
S. Case Detail Judgment Punishment
No.
1. Sessions Judgment dated for offence under Section
Case 10.01.2020, passed 302/34 IPC- Life
No.204/2019 by Special Judge imprisonment
(CIS No. (Sati Nivaran) &
11/19) Additional Sessions
Judge, Jaipur
Metropolitan
[2024:RJ-JP:10687] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-907/2024]
2. SessionsCase Judgment dated 4 years (u/s 333 IPC)
No.03/2018 25.07.2018, passed
(45/2016) by Additional 2 years (u/s 353 IPC)
District & Session
Judge No.3, Jaipur
3. Sessions Judgment dated 20 years [u/s 376(D) IPC]
Case No. 04.09.2015, passed
6/2015 (CIS by learned 5 years (u/s 366 IPC)
No.1/2015) -Additional Sessions
Judge No.4, Jaipur 6 months (u/s 342 IPC)
2 years (u/s 384 IPC)
6 months (u/s 323 IPC)
3. Learned counsel submits that the sentences, awarded to the
petitioner in all three cases are not running concurrently, and in
absence of any specific order, regarding sentence to run
concurrently, the petitioner has to serve the sentence of first case
and on completion of thereof, the sentence of second case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Laxmi Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. rendered in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.563/2017 in which, the
learned Coordinate Bench has discussed the decisions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in State of Punjab v. Madan Lal, AIR
2009 SC (Supp) 2836, V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana &
Ors., 2013 Cr.L.J. 3986, Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya &
Anr., AIR 2016 SC 5021 and in Ammavasai & Anr. v.
Inspector of Police & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3544, and has held
as under:-
"As per sub-section (1) of Section 427
CrPC when a person already undergoing a
sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a
subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such
[2024:RJ-JP:10687] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-907/2024]
imprisonment shall commence at the expiration
of the imprisonment to which he has beens that
the subsequent sentence previously sentenced,
unless the court direct shall run concurrently
with such previous sentence:
As per second proviso to sub-section (1)
of section 427 CrPC where a person who has
been sentenced to imprisonment by an order
under section122 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.
Sub-section (2) of section 427 CrPC
provides that 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.
From the above, it can be gathered that
the intention of legislature is that even the life
convicts have been held entitled to benefit of
subsequent sentence, being run concurrently,
be it life term or of any lesser term then the
different yardstick cannot be applied for those
persons, who have been awarded sentence or
lesser duration than life unless there are
compelling reasons to do so. In this case, I do
not see any compelling reason to order that all
the sentences awarded to the petitioner in all
14 cases would run consecutively."
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the factual
aspects of the matter. However, he has opposed the prayer to
invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. in the matter.
5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and have gone through the material available on record.
[2024:RJ-JP:10687] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-907/2024]
6. 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."
7. 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,
[2024:RJ-JP:10687] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-907/2024]
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.
8. The first conviction of the accused petitioner was recorded
for offences under Sections 376(D), 366, 342, 384 and 323 IPC in
the year 2015. Thereafter, he was convicted and sentences in two
cases in the year 2018 and 2020 respectively. The appeals filed by
the petitioner against his conviction and sentences vide the
aforesaid judgments, are pending before this Court. Thus, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the period
of detention, the petitioner has undergone till date and in view of
the observation made in the above-referred case, this Court is of
the opinion that it would not be inconsistent in the administration
of justice, if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of discretion
contained in Section 427 Cr.P.C. with a view to meet the ends of
justice.
9. The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. It is directed that the
sentence passed in the aforeaaid criminal cases (Annexure-1 to
Annexure-3) would run concurrently.
10. However, the petitioner will have to serve default sentences,
as the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction
for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the
[2024:RJ-JP:10687] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-907/2024]
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 shall not be effected
by this direction and if the petitioner has not paid the
fine/compensation as directed by the trial court, the said sentence
would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the
fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo default
sentences. If petitioner has undergone the sentence and sentence
in lieu of default of fine, he be released forthwith, if not warranted
in any other case.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
CHARU SONI /8
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
