Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Daljeet Singh vs State on 12 September, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 3/2018
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.516/2012
Daljeet Singh S/o. Shri Dayal Singh, by caste Jat Sikh, resident
of Cheecha, P.S. Khareda, District Amritsar (Punjab)
[at present lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner]
----Applicant/appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.L. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anees Bhurat, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 12/09/2019
1. Counsel for the applicant Mr. M.L. Bishnoi submits that the prayer of concurrent running of sentence is made on the basis of glaring fact that both the proceedings in which the appellant has been punished i.e. Sessions Case No.37/1993 vide judgment and order dated 12.4.2012 and 20.12.2011, ought to run concurrently as both the proceedings are arising out of common FIR No.7/1989 P.S. Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar giving rise to proceedings under Section 307, 353 IPC, Section 3/6 I.P.P.R. and Section 8, 23, 25 of NDPS Act on one side, and Section 112 of the Customs Act on the other side.
2. Counsel for the applicant submits that in the trial under the Customs Law, appellant was awarded sentence of five years (Downloaded on 16/09/2019 at 08:37:25 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLMA-3/2018] and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, whereas in the trial under the NDPS Act a separate challan was filed and sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment has been awarded to the appellant alongwith fine stipulations.
3. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of Anup Khati @ Kaliya Khati Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2018(3) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) page 1246, relevant portion whereof reads as follows :-
"14. In all the 5 complaints filed against the petitioner, he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 IPC and has been sentenced as aforesaid. The maximum sentence awarded to the petitioner is 4 years' simple imprisonment along with fine.
15. The substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in all the 5 cases, if calculated jointly, come to 19 years and 3 months and as per information supplied by the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner vide letter dated 26.04.2018 sent to G.A. Office, the petitioner has already served more than seven years' sentence.
16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, offence involved, sentences awarded, period of detention of the petitioner as on date and in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Rajender vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted benefit of section 427 of the CrPC and in my opinion, it would not be inconsistent with the administration of criminal justice.
17. So far as the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Shimbhu Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) is concerned, the same has no applicability in the present case as the petitioner is praying for a direction that the sentences awarded to him in different cases be run concurrently, which are subject matter of the criminal revision petitions filed by petitioner before this Court and they have not yet been decided, therefore, it cannot be said that this Court has become functus officio. In Shimbhu Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the petition under section 482 CrPC was filed after the decision of the High Court in the criminal appeal and, therefore, the Division Bench has held that after final decision in the appeal, the petition under section 482 CrPC with a prayer for issuing directions to run different sentences concurrently is not maintainable as this Court has become functus officio.(Downloaded on 16/09/2019 at 08:37:25 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMA-3/2018]
18. In such circumstances, the present misc. petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC are allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above referred 5 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).
A copy of this order be placed in S.B.Cr. Revision Petition Nos. 251/2017, 228/2017, 227/2017 and 232/2017. "
4. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute that both the proceedings are not arising out of common FIR i.e. FIR No.7/1989 P.S. Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the precedent law in Anup Khati @ Kaliya Khati (supra), so also, looking into peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where simultaneous proceedings were launched against the appellant under NDPS Act as well as Customs Law, arising out of common FIR No.7/1989 P.S. Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar, this Court is of the view that in such peculiar circumstance the sentences awarded ought to run concurrently.
6. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences awarded to the applicant/appellant in the above referred two cases would run concurrently, however, the appellant will have to serve default sentences as the provisions of section 427 of the Cr. P.C., do not (Downloaded on 16/09/2019 at 08:37:25 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLMA-3/2018] permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. The sentences, which the appellant has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be effected by this direction and if the appellant has not paid the fine/compensation as directed by the trial courts, the said sentences would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the appellant 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).
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 33-Sanjay/-
(Downloaded on 16/09/2019 at 08:37:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)