Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22755) on 12 May, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:22755]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3755/2025
Babu Lal Choudhary S/o Ganeshlal Choudhary, Aged About 59
Years, R/o 30 Ground Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Bhoopalpura, Udaipur
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kshitij Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
12/05/2025
By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 of 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. That the respondent may be directed to run the
custody of the petitioner in sentences imposed in N.I.
Case No. 9148/2014 titled as Dilip Singh Chouhan Vs
Babulal Choudhary, N.I. Case No. 10172/2014 titled
as Dilip Kumar Narwani Vs Babulal Choudhary, N.I.
Case No. 14823/2015 titled as Om Prakash Kalra Vs
Babulal Choudhary concurrently;"
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
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, details whereof is being given
here under:
[2025:RJ-JD:22755] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3755/2025]
Sr. Case No. Court Date of Sentence Appeal
No Decision Fine/Compensati
. on
1. 14823/2015 Special J.M. 16.10.2023 1 year S.I. and Cr. Appeal No.
(NI Court Rs.2,00,000 Fine 467/2023
No.06), + 1 month in dismissed and
Udaipur default payment confirmed vide
order dt.
11.03.2024
2. 9148/2014 Special J.M. 03.11.2023 1 year S.I. and Cr. Appeal No.
(NI Court Rs.8,00,000 Fine 472/2023
No.06), + 1 month in dismissed and
Udaipur default payment confirmed vide
order dt.
19.03.2024
3. 10172/2014 Special J.M. 12.03.2024 2 years S.I. and Cr. Appeal No.
No.02, Fine + 1 month dismissed and
Udaipur in default confirmed vide
payment order dt.
31.05.2024
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
[2025:RJ-JD:22755] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3755/2025]
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)."
Having considered the joint submission made by 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 aforesaid precedent
law is applicant in the present case.
The present criminal misc. petition is accordingly allowed, in
terms of the above mentioned judgment passed in the Rajendra
Kabra (Supra).
Accordingly, all the substantive sentences imposed upon the
petitioner vide judgment dated 16.10.2023 (Regular Case
No.14823/2015); judgment dated 03.11.2023 (Regular Case
No.9148/2014); and judgment 12.03.2024 (Regular Case
No.10172/2014) passed by Special J.M. (N.I. Act Cases) No.06,
Udaipur and Special J.M. (N.I. Act Cases) No.02, Udaipur
respectively, are ordered to run concurrently.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:22755] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3755/2025]
undergo the default sentences (sentences awarded by the learned
trial Court in default of payment of fine/compensation).
All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
28-Dinesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
