Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chatar Singh Devra vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35153) on 7 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:35153]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6341/2025

Chatar Singh Devra S/o Shri Jamant Singh Devra, Aged About
45 Years, Mataji Ka Kera,village Debari, Tehsil Girws, Distriict
Udaipur. (Raj.)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Firoz Khan
                                  Mr. Zaheer Abbas
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Shreeram Choudhary, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

07/08/2025

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has been convicted in many cases for the

offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in different

Courts situated at Udaipur:

S. Court Name Case No. Decision Sentence Awarded No. Date

1. Special Judge, N.I. 15029/2015 03.08.2022 01 years S.I. Fine Act Cases, No.2, Rs.9,20,000/- in Udaipur default of payment 03 months simple imprisonment.

2. Special Judge, N.I. 15611/2015 17.11.2023 01 years two months Act Cases, No.2, S.I. Fine Udaipur Rs.13,00,000/- in default of payment 01 months simple imprisonment.

3. Special Judge Criminal 30.06.2023 01 years S.I. Fine SC/ST (Prevention Appeal Rs.9,00,000/- in of Atrocities) Act No.174/2023 default of payment 03 Cases, Udaipur (CIS month simple No.174/2023) imprisonment.

[2025:RJ-JD:35153] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6341/2025]

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 and

sentences passed by the learned trial court. He submits that the

learned trial court failed to exercise its discretion within the ambit

of Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C Learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that the consequence of serving sentence by the

petitioner one after the other that is to say consecutive sentence

would be that he has to undergo a total term of imprisonment of

03 years and 07 months in respect of aforementioned cases,

which would cause serious miscarriage of justice. He has placed

reliance on the following judgments:

(i). Iqram vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Reported in

(2023) 3 SCC 184

(ii). Gopal Das vs State of Delhi reported in AIR 1978 Delhi 138

5. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate

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.

[2025:RJ-JD:35153] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6341/2025]

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

discretion based on settled principles may direct that the

subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous

[2025:RJ-JD:35153] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6341/2025]

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 serious

miscarriage of justice.

9. In Mohd. Zahid v State through NCB reported in 2021

SCC OnLine SC 1183, Hon'ble Supreme Court Court interpreted

the provisions of Section 427 of CrPC after duly considering the

precedents in the following terms :

"33. Thus from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the principles of law that emerge are as under:

(i) if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced;

(ii) ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence;

(iii) the general rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 Cr.P.C.;

(iv) under Section 427(1) of Cr.PC the court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that all the subsequent sentences run concurrently with the previous sentence, however discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of the offence or the offences committed and the facts in situation. However, there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence."

[2025:RJ-JD:35153] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6341/2025]

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 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. If the sentences are ordered to run consecutively, the

petitioner has to remain incarcerated for a period of nearly 03

years 07 months in respect of his conviction and sentence in the

aforementioned cases, which in no manner can be said to be