Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinbandhu Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20640) on 28 April, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:20640]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3397/2025
Dinbandhu Sharma S/o Hari Shankar Sharma, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Near Asthal Charbhuja Temple Gothmalya Gali Bijoliya
Ps Bijoliya District Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
28/04/2025
1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following
relief:
"It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to allow this petition and:
a. The Respondents may be directed to run the
sentences imposed in the N.I. case no. 23/2018
TITLED AS OM PRAKASH VERSUS DINBANDHU
SHARMA, CASE NO.51/2018 TITLED AS NARENDRA
SINGH VERSUS DINBANDHU SHARMA, CASE
NO.69/2018 TITLED AS KAMLA SHANKAR VERSUS
DINBANDHU SHARMA, CASE NO. 101/2018 TITLED
AS ANITA KANAWAT VERSUS DINBANDHU SHARMA,
CASE NO. 338/2018 TITLED AS DHARMENDRA
KUMAR VERSUS DINBANDHU SHARMA and CASE
NO. 371/2018 TITLED AS ROOP SINGH TANWAR
VERSUS DINBANDHU SHARMA concurrently;...."
2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present
criminal misc. petition are that the petitioner was tried, convicted
and sentenced by different trial courts for the offences punishable
[2025:RJ-JD:20640] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3397/2025]
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, details whereof is being
reproduced here under:
Sr. Case Title Case No. Name of Court Date of Punishment and Fine
No. Decision
1. Omprakash 23/2018 THE LEARNED 26.9.2023 1 years simple
Versus CIVIL AND imprisonment,
Dinbandhu JUDICIAL 3,80,000/- in default
Sharma MAGISTRATE 3 month simple
BIJOLIA imprisonment
2. Narendra 51/2018 THE LEARNED 30.1.2024 1 year and 6 months
Singh CIVIL AND simple
Versus JUDICIAL imprisonment,
Dinbandhu MAGISTRATE 15,00,000/- in
Sharma BIJOLIA default 4 month
simple imprisonment
3. Kamla 69/2018 THE LEARNED 30.4.2022 1 years simple
Shankar CIVIL AND imprisonment,
Versus JUDICIAL 3,00,000/- in default
Dinbandhu MAGISTRATE 3 month simple
Sharma BIJOLIA imprisonment
4. Anita 101/2018 THE LEARNED 26.9.2023 1 years simple
Kanavat CIVIL AND imprisonment,
Versus JUDICIAL 7,85,00/- in default
Dinbandhu MAGISTRATE 3 month simple
Sharma BIJOLIA imprisonment
5. Dharmendr 338/2018 THE LEARNED 30.1.2024 1 years and 6 month
a Kumar CIVIL AND simple
Versus JUDICIAL imprisonment,
Dinbandhu MAGISTRATE 2,15,000/- in default
Sharma BIJOLIA 4 month simple
imprisonment
6. Roop Singh 371/2018 THE LEARNED 04.3.2024 1 years and 6
Tanwar CIVIL AND months simple
Versus JUDICIAL imprisonment,
Dinbandhu MAGISTRATE 4,85,000/- in default
Sharma BIJOLIA 4 month simple
imprisonment
3. Learned counsel for the parties fairly conceded that the
present case is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the co-
ordinate bench of this Court in the case of S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.2883/2014 (Rajendra Kabra vs. State of
Rajasthan) decided on 17.02.2017 wherein it was held as
under:
[2025:RJ-JD:20640] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3397/2025]
"Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the present case, offence involved, sentences awarded,
period of detention of the petitioner as on date and the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab vs. MadanLal, V.K.Bansal vs. State of
Haryana & Ors., Shyam Palvs. Dayawati Besoya &
Anr. and Ammavasai & Anr. vs. Inspector of Police &
Ors. (supra), I am of the considered view that it would
not be inconsistent with the administration of criminal
justice if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of discretion
contained in section 427 of the Code to meet the ends of
justice. However, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
and Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr.(supra), the
direction for concurrent running of sentences would be
limited only to the substantive sentences alone.
In such circumstances, the present misc. petition is
allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences
awarded to the petitioner in the above referred 32 cases
would run concurrently, however, the petitioner will have
to serve default sentences as the provisions of section 427
of the CrPC 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 shall
not be effected by this direction and if the petitioner has
not paid the fine/compensation as directed by the trial
courts, the said sentences would run consecutively.
Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the
fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo
default sentences(sentences awarded by the trial courts in
default of payment of fine/compensation)."
4. Having considered the joint submission made by learned
counsel for the parties at Bar, this Court is of the opinion that
since all the cases against the petitioner pertain to offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, the
present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid precedent law.
5. The present criminal misc. petition is accordingly allowed, in
terms of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench in
Rajendra Kabra (Supra).
6. Accordingly, all the substantive sentences imposed upon the
petitioner vide judgment dated 26.9.2023 (Regular Case
No.23/2018); judgment dated 30.1.2024 (Regular Case
[2025:RJ-JD:20640] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3397/2025]
No.51/2018); judgment 30.4.2024 (Regular Case No.69/2018);
judgment dated 26.9.2023 (Regular Case No.101/2018);
judgment dated 30.1.2024 (Regular Case No.338/2018) and
judgment dated 04.3.2024 (Regular Case No.371/2018) passed by
the learned Civil and Judicial Magistrate, Bijolia are ordered to run
concurrently.
7. However, the sentences of fine and the sentences in default
of payment of fine/compensation imposed upon the petitioner
shall not be affected. If the petitioner has not paid the
fine/compensation as directed by the learned trial court, the said
sentences would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the
petitioner pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to
undergo the default sentences (sentences awarded by the learned
trial court in default of payment of fine/compensation).
8. All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
78-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
