[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nathulal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9106) on 18 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9106]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9974/2025
Nathulal S/o Ruplal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Dabda
Tehsil Raashmi District Chittorgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kshitij Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
18/02/2026
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.476/2014 titled as Harish Chandra Vs.
Nathulal; Case No.929/2015 titled as Radheshyam Vs.
Nathulal concurrently; Case No.930/2015 titled as
Radheshyam Vs. Nathulal; Case No.1184/2015 titled
as Ladulal Vs. Nathulal; Case No.2102/2015 titled as
Gopal Vs. Nathulal; Case No.1236/2016 titled as
Madan Lal Vs. Nathulal; 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:
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:56:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9106] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-9974/2025]
Sr. Case No. Court Date of Sentence Appeal
No Decision Fine/Compensati
. on
1. 476/2014 Special J.M. 10.10.2023 1 year and 6 Cr. Appeal No.
(NI Act Months S.I. and 30/2023
Cases), Rs.5,00,000 Fine affirmed the
Chittorgarh + 3 month in sentence of
default payment conviction
through vide
order dt.
07.09.2024
2. 929/2015 Civil Judge 18.01.2024 1 year S.I. and Cr. Appeal No.
and Judicial Rs.2,00,000 Fine 09/2024
Magistrate, + 1 month in affirmed the
Chittorgarh default of sentence of
payment of fine conviction
through vide
order dt.
06.09.2024
3. 930/2015 Civil Judge 18.01.2024 1 years S.I. and Cr. Appeal No.
and Judicial Rs.2,10,000 Fine 10/2024
Magistrate, + 1 month in affirmed the
Chittorgarh default payment sentence of
conviction
through vide
order dt.
07.09.2024
4. 1184/2025 Civil Judge 18.01.2024 1 years S.I. and Cr. Appeal No.
and Judicial Rs.1,50,000 Fine 07/2024
Magistrate, + 1 month in affirmed the
Chittorgarh default payment sentence of
of fine conviction
through vide
order dt.
06.09.2024
5. 1236/2026 Additional 13.03.2024 2 years S.I. and Cr. Appeal No.
Civil Judge Rs.6,50,000 Fine 53/2024
and Judicial + 3 month in affirmed the
Magistrate default payment sentence of
No.2, of fine conviction
Chittorgarh through vide
order dt.
29.05.2024
6. 2102/2025 Civil Judge 18.01.2024 1 years S.I. and Cr. Appeal No.
and Judicial Rs.4,80,000 Fine 08/2024
Magistrate, + 1 month in affirmed the
Chittorgarh default payment sentence of
of fine conviction
through vide
order dt.
06.09.2024
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
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:56:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9106] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-9974/2025]
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
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).
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:56:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9106] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-9974/2025]
Accordingly, all the substantive sentences imposed upon the
petitioner vide order dated 10.10.2023 Case No.476/2014 titled as
Harish Chandra Vs. Nathulal; vide order dated 18.01.2024 Case
No.929/2015 titled as Radheshyam Vs. Nathulal; vide order dated
18.01.2024 Case No.930/2015 titled as Radheshyam Vs. Nathulal;
vide order dated 18.01.2024 Case No.1184/2015 titled as Ladulal
Vs. Nathulal; vide order dated 18.01.2024 Case No.2102/2015
titled as Gopal Vs. Nathulal; vide order dated 13.03.2024 Case
No.1236/2016 titled as Madan Lal Vs. Nathulal; 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
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.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
221-Hanuman/-
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:56:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
