TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner in the 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. - S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1345/ 2016 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2017 - DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI For Petitioner: Mr.K.R.Bhati For Respondent: Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit PP for the State. ORDER 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 427 Cr.P.C. for different cases in sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with regard to commercial transaction that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter is covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.2224/2015 decided on 17.02.2017). 3. The coordinate Bench of this Court on 17.02.2017 has passed the following order in Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan (supra):- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction is having a very large 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. We are of considered opinion that to meet the ends of justice and to rectify the gross error the powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. The court while doing so must keep in mind all necessary ingredients and precedents which are to be taken into consideration to exercise the discretion as per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure. The reference made by learned Single Bench is answered accordingly. Let the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions be listed before learned Single Bench for their adjudication on merits. Now in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Arjun Ram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. 1228/2012 Metropolitan Magistrate No.17, Jaipur 26.04.2013 8 months Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 2 months SI. 9. 986/2009 Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jaipur 08.05.2013 1 Year and 3 months Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 4 months SI. 10. 32/2010 Metropolitan Magistrate No.10 , Jaipur 15.05.2013 1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,50,000/-. 11. 848/2012 Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate No.12 , Jaipur 11.07.2012 2 years Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,58,500/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months SI. 12. 849/2012 Addl. Metropolitan Magistr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and in Ammavasai Anr. vs. Inspector of Police Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3544. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for concurrent running of all the sentences awarded to him in 14 different cases by the trial courts for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act and prayed for dismissal of this criminal misc. petition. It is noticed that all the complaints against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act were filed during the period from 2009 to 2012. In all the complaints, similar nature of allegations levelled by the complainant are that the petitioner borrowed the money from them and gave cheques for repayment of the said money, however, on presentation of the said cheques in the bank, the same could not be realized for the reason that the account has been closed. In all the 14 complaints filed against the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 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 life unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In this case, I do not see any compelling reason to order that all the sentences awarded to the petitioner in all 14 cases would run consecutively. The substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in all the 14 cases, if calculated jointly, is about 18 years and 11 months. As per the certificate dated 09.02.2016 (Exhibit-1) issued by Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur, the petitioner is in jail from 02.12.2011. As such till January 2017, the petitioner served 5 years and 1 month sentence. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, offence involved, sentences awarded, period of detention of the petitioner as on date and the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal, V.K.Bansal vs. State of Haryana Ors., Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya Anr. and Ammavasai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
