9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner with a prayer that the sentences awarded to him in 14 different cases for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, details of which are being provided in later part of this order, may be ordered to run concurrently. Initially this misc. petition was preferred at Jaipur Bench of this Court, however, by judicial order dated 28.04.2015, it has been transferred to Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur. A reference was made to the Division Bench of this Court to adjudicate the following question: "WHETHER, the High Court exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. and order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently." The Division Bench of this Court in Arjun Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.1912/2013 along with three other miscellaneous petitions) reported in 2016(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346, answered the said reference in the following terms: "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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present misc. petition are that the petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced by the different trial courts for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act, details of which are being given hereunder: S. No. Case No. Court Date Imprisonment & Fine Appeal 1. 1385/2011 Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate No.12 , Jaipur 05.11.2011 1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,06,000/- . 2. 738/2009 Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate No.8 , Jaipur 17.04.2012 1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,70,000/- . 3. 1151/2009 Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur 05.09.2012 2 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,30,000/- 4. 1107/2012 Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate No.12 , Jaipur 25.09.2012 2 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,61,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months' SI 5. 1106/2012 Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate No.12 , Jaipur 25.09.2012 2 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,63,500/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months' S.I. 6. 247/2010 Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate No.3 , Jaipur 15.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner would effectively mean that the total length of sentences in aggregate would be more than 18 years and 11 months and in default of payment of fine in total about 24 months additional simple imprisonment has been awarded to the petitioner meaning thereby that the total sentences awarded to the petitioner come to about 20 years and 11 months. It is also argued that the petitioner is behind the bars since 02.12.2011 and till January, 2017, he had served five years and one month's sentence out of total sentence of 18 years and 11 months. It is further argued that though the petitioner was awarded those sentences in different cases but all the cases are of similar nature. It is also averred that the maximum sentence in respect of present kind of offence is two years simple imprisonment and if all the sentences are allowed to run consecutively petitioner would remain behind the bars up to year 2030. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2836, V.K.Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2013 Cr.L.J. 3986, Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr., AIR 2016 SC 5021 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risonment 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: As per second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 427 CrPC 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. Sub-section (2) of section 427 CrPC provides that 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. From the above, it can be gathered that the intention of legislature is that even the life convicts have been held entitled to benefit of subsequent sentence, being run concurrently, be it life term or of any lesser term then the different yardstick cannot be applied for those persons, who have been awarded sentence of lesser duration than li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
