Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Singh @ Disha vs . The State Of Rajasthan on 12 January, 2016
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
(1) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.302/2015 Jagdish Singh @ Disha Vs. The State of Rajasthan (2) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.303/2015 Jagdish Singh @ Disha Vs. The State of Rajasthan (3) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.304/2015 Jagdish Singh @ Disha Vs. The State of Rajasthan (4) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.305/2015 Jagdish Singh @ Disha Vs. The State of Rajasthan (5) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.306/2015 Jagdish Singh @ Disha Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of order : 12.1.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr.MK Garg, for the petitioner.
Mr.Pankaj Awasthi, P.P. <><><> These five revisions have been preferred by the petitioner convict Jagdish Singh @ Disha being aggrieved of the judgments passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur in appeals whereby, the appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentences of the petitioner as recorded by the learned ACJM, Srikaranpur in five cases described as under:-
Cr.Revisio Trial Court's Cr.Case Conviction and Appellate n No. Judgment No. sentences Court's dated Judgment dated 2 302/2015 6.7.2013 256/2012 Under Section 454 26.6.2014 IPC - 3 Years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. Under Section 380 IPC - 3 Years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. 303/2015 6.7.2013 224/2012 Under Section 454 31.10.2014 IPC - 3 Years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. Under Section 380 IPC - 3 Years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. 304/2015 6.7.2013 225/2012 Under Section 454 7.7.2014 IPC - 3 Years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. Under Section 380 IPC - 3 Years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. 3 305/2015 17.6.2013 222/2012 Under Section 454 5.11.2014 IPC - 3 Years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. Under Section 380 IPC - 3 Years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. 306/2015 17.6.2013 223/2012 Under Section 454 11.11.2014 IPC - 3 Years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. Under Section 380 IPC - 3 Years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the petitioner's conviction but prays that in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 1.5.2012, the sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above five cases may be directed to run concurrently. He relies on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal reported in AIR 2009 (Supp) SC 2836 in support of this contention.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the 4 submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and thus, he deserves no leniency on the question of sentence as well.
I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.
On going through the record, it is evident that the petitioner was in custody during the course of the trial as well as during the appeal. Thus, he has suffered actual imprisonment of a period in excess of 3½ years. As per the applicable provisions of Cr.P.C., unless the Court directs to the otherwise, an accused convicted and sentenced in different cases is required to be made to suffer the sentences one after the other. Nonetheless, in view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal (supra), the appellate court or the Revisional Court if it so considers appropriate, can direct that the sentences awarded to an accused in similar kind of cases be made to run concurrently.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 3½ years in the above five cases involving identical offences, the circumstances are appropriate for passing such a direction in the case of the petitioner as well.
Thus, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the 5 appellate Court in the above five cases, it is hereby ordered that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above five cases shall run concurrently.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court and the concerned jail forthwith.
Record be sent back forthwith.
Copy of this order be placed in each file.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tarun/