Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Chandra Nangarchi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:36026) on 12 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6475/2025
Prakash Chandra Nangarchi S/o Late Goverdhan Lal, Aged About
56 Years, R/o House No. 1-G-5, Housingh Board Gandhinagar,
Sector No.4, Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemendra Singh Sever
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order 12/08/2025
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. 710/2018 29.03.2022 01 years S.I. Fine Act Cases), Rs.10,00,000/- in Chittorgarh default of payment 01 month simple imprisonment.
2. Special Judge, (N.I. 412/2022 20.11.2024 01 years two months Act Cases), S.I. Fine Chittorgarh Rs.7,50,000/- in default of payment 03 months simple imprisonment.
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. (Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:53:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36026] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6475/2025]
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 02 years and 04 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.
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 (Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:53:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36026] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6475/2025] 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 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 (Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:53:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36026] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6475/2025] 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."
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, (Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:53:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36026] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6475/2025] 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 02 years and 04 months in respect of his conviction and sentence in the aforementioned cases, which in no manner can be said to be justifiable.
12. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in above referred cases, I deem it proper to allow the instant criminal misc. petition and accordingly it is hereby directed that the sentences passed in all the aforesaid criminal cases shall run concurrently. However, the petitioner would be required to pay the fine amount, imposed upon him in the aforementioned cases or else, he shall undergo default sentences, separately and consecutively. If the petitioner has undergone the maximum sentences of one year three months, awarded to him in the above cases, concurrently, and sentences, in lieu of default of payment of fine, he be released forthwith.
13. The misc. petition is allowed accordingly.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 289-mSingh/-
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:53:20 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)