Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suresh Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 February, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 143/2019
Suresh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Gangadhar Singh B/c Jat, R/o
Kolana, Thana Noijheel, District Mathura, Up.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola.
For State : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
14/02/2020
1. The matter comes up on application filed by the petitioner for disposal of the case.
2. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition aggrieved by Order dated 24.11.2014 passed by Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Kota in Criminal Case No.50/12, Order dated 28.11.2014 passed by Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Kota in Criminal Case No.51/2012 and Order dated 01.12.2014 passed by Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Kota in Criminal Case No.06/2013, whereby he was convicted for offence under Sections 407 & 120-B of IPC and against the Order dated 04.12.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.71/2014, 72/2014 & 73/2014.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Officers of PWD filed three different FIRs against the petitioner and another co-accused. Petitioner has been convicted in all the cases and his appeal also stands dismissed by the Court by a common (Downloaded on 18/02/2020 at 09:44:29 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-143/2019] order dated 04.11.2018. It is contended that sentence awarded in each case is three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and on non-payment of fine further undergo ten days simple imprisonment for offence under Section 407 and six months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 120-B of IPC with Rs.100/- fine and on non-payment of fine, further undergo one day simple imprisonment. Court has further directed the sentence to run concurrently.
4. It is contended that petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the discretion contained in Section 427 of IPC with an order that the sentence be directed to run concurrently.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.2224/2015" and "Arjun Ram vs. State of Raj. 2016(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346".
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Division Bench of this Court in Arjun Ram vs. State of Raj. (Supra) was dealing with a reference and the question before the Division Bench was "whether the High Court exercising the powers under Section 482 invoke Section 427 of Cr.P.C. and order that sentence awarded in two different cases was run concurrently".
8. Division Bench of this Court answered the reference in positive and held that to meet the ends of justice and to rectify the gross error the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised, if Court arrives at a 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 of the Cr.P.C. Court further held that inherent jurisdiction is having a very large (Downloaded on 18/02/2020 at 09:44:29 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMP-143/2019] amplitude but should always be exercised cautiously and only to prevent miscarriage of justice. While keeping in mind that the inherent powers must be exercised sparingly, the Court should not restrain itself to invoke the same if any injury is caused to the justice.
9. In the present case in hand, the appellate Court decided all the three appeals on the same day but question of Section 427 of Cr.P.C. was not considered by the Court. Thus, the appellate Court failed to complete the circuit of justice of not invoking the discretion vested with it as per Section 427 of Cr.P.C. All three cases in which petitioner stands convicted are pertaining to Section 407 & 120-B of IPC and sentence awarded in all cases are similar, I deem it proper to allow the misc. petition.
10. Criminal misc. petition is allowed. Sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner vide Order dated 24.11.2014 passed by Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Kota in Criminal Case No.50/12, Order dated 28.11.2014 passed by Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Kota in Criminal Case No.51/2012 and Order dated 01.12.2014 passed by Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Kota in Criminal Case No.06/2013 are directed to run concurrently.
11. However, it is made clear that petitioner would be required to deposit the fine separately as per the Court order in each case or suffer imprisonment in lieu of non deposition of fine.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J CHANDAN /35 (Downloaded on 18/02/2020 at 09:44:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)