Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Amar Singh S/O Shri Ram Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:45984) on 6 November, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:45984]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2379/2024
Amar Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, R/o House No. 247, Mistri
Mohalla, Gulab Badi, Police Station Alwer Gate, Ajmer, Rajasthan
(At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Nagarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/11/2024
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in following six cases for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act:-
S. Case Number Date of Details of Details of No. and Title Judgment Sentence Appeal and the name of Court passing the judgment
1. Criminal Case 16.09.2023, 3 months' SI -----
No.2011/2021 passed by with fine of (CIS Ld. Special Rs.77,000/-
No.5160/2021) Judicial in default of
(Jagdamba Magistrate, payment of
Enterprises No.4, Ajmer fine, to
through further
Proprietor undergo one
Lokesh Singh month's
Rawat vs. Amar additional SI
Singh)
2. Criminal Case 03.02.2023 6 months' SI -----
No.101/2018 passed by with fine of
(CIS Ld. Judicial Rs.2,00,000/
No.181/2018) Magistrate - in default of
(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:13:18 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:45984] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2379/2024]
(Ramchandar vs No.1, Ajmer payment of
Amar Singh) fine, to
further
undergo
fifteen days'
additional SI
3. Criminal Case 07.07.2022 6 months' SI ----
No.91/2018 passed by with fine of
(CIS Ld. JM No.3, Rs.1,85,000/
No.138/2018) Ajmer in default of
(Dinesh Singh payment of
Rawat vs Amar fine, to
Singh) further
undergo
fifteen days'
additional SI
4. Criminal Case 31.08.2022 2 years' SI ----
No.730/2018 passed by with fine of
(CIS Ld. JM No.1, Rs.3,15,0000
No.6258/2018) Ajmer /- in default
(Mukesh of payment
Sharma vs Amar of fine, to
Singh) further
undergo two
months'
additional SI
5. Criminal Case 29.06.2022 1 year's SI -----
No.724/2018 passed by with fine of (CIS Ld. Special Rs.3,00,000/ No.724/2018) Judicial - in default of (Ramdev vs Magistrate payment of Amar Singh) (N.I. Act fine, to Cases) No.2, further Ajmer undergo one month's additional SI 6. Criminal Case 28.11.2019 6 months' SI Criminal No.662/2017 passed by with fine of Appeal (CIS Ld. Addl. Rs.1,68,000/ No.132/2019 No.15575/2017) Civil Judge - in default of (CIS (Shankarlal and Judicial payment of No.719/2019), Mehra vs Amar Magistrate fine, to dismissed vide Singh) No.1, Ajmer further judgment undergo one dated month's 06.11.2023 by additional SI Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge No.5, Ajmer (Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:13:18 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:45984] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2379/2024]
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.
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 in respect of aforementioned cases, which would cause serious miscarriage of justice. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. Iqram vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Reported in (2023) 3 SCC 184
2. Gopal Das vs State of Delhi reported in AIR 1978 Delhi 138
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor 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. (Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:13:18 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:45984] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2379/2024]
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 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 (Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:13:18 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:45984] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2379/2024] 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 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."(Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:13:18 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:45984] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2379/2024]
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, 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. If the sentences are ordered to run consecutively, the petitioner has to remain incarcerated for a long time period in respect of his conviction and sentence in the aforementioned cases, which in no manner can be said to be justifiable.
11. In the case of Madan Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B Criminal Misc. Petition No.3560/2015, decided on 08.03.2017), the learned Coordinate Bench directed the sentence to run concurrently in five cases pertaining to the N.I. Act. While deciding the aforesaid case, the Coordinate Bench has placed reliance on Supreme Court judgment in the case of "State of Punjab vs Madan Lal : 2009 (5) SCC 238.
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 (Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:13:18 AM) [2024:RJ-JP:45984] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-2379/2024] the aforementioned cases or else, he shall undergo default sentences, separately and consecutively.
13. The misc. petition is allowed accordingly.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /349 (Downloaded on 23/11/2024 at 12:13:18 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)