Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chetram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:21813) on 6 May, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:21813]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4021/2024

Chetram S/o Shri Maniram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 5,
Goluwala Niwadan, Near Gawariya, Dharamshala, Tehsil Pilibanga,
Dist. Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged At Central Jail, Bikaner)

                                                                         ----Petitioner

                                          Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

                                                                       ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)               :    Mr. D.S. Thind
For Respondent(s)               :    Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                         ORDER

06/05/2025

By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following

relief:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that this cr. Misc. petition is allowed and a direction to run the sentence passed against the petititioner under the NI Act in two cases namely Criminal Cases No.284/2015 (Jagatpal Vs. Chetaram, decided on 05.05.2023) and 709/2016 (Richpal Vs. Chetaram, decided on 24.07.2023) passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga may kindly be ordered to run concurrently."

Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present

criminal misc. petition are that the petitioner was tried, convicted

and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga,

District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the N.I. Act, details whereof is being given here under:

Sr. Case No.               Court              Date of                Sentence
No.                                           Decision          Fine/Compensation
1.    284/2015       Judicial               05.05.2023        1 years S.I. and to pay a



 [2025:RJ-JD:21813]                       (2 of 3)                    [CRLMP-4021/2024]


                     Magistrate,                             compensation           of
                     Pilibanga, District                     Rs.6,00,000/-.
                     Hanumangarh
2.    709/2016       Judicial            24.07.2023          1 years S.I. and to pay a
                     Magistrate,                             compensation           of
                     Pilibanga, District                     Rs.10,00,000/-.
                     Hanumangarh

Learned counsel for the parties fairly conceded that the

present case is squarely covered by a decision rendered in the

case of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2883/2014 (Rajendra

Kabra vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 17.02.2017

wherein, a coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to hold as

under:

"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

[2025:RJ-JD:21813] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4021/2024]

the trial courts in default of payment of fine/compensation)."

Having considered the joint submission made by the parties

at bar, this Court is of the opinion that since both the cases

against the petitioner pertain to offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, the aforesaid

precedent law is applicant in the present case.

The present criminal misc. petition is accordingly allowed, in

terms of the above mentioned precedent passed in the Rajendra

Kabra (Supra).

Accordingly, both the substantive sentences imposed upon

the petitioner vide judgment dated 05.03.2023 (Regular Criminal

Case No.284/2015) and judgment dated 24.07.2023 (Regular

Criminal Case No.709/2016) passed by the learned Judicial