Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Prakash Chandra Nangarchi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:36026) on 12 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6475/2025
Prakash Chandra Nangarchi S/o Late Goverdhan Lal, Aged About
56 Years, R/o House No. 1-G-5, Housingh Board Gandhinagar,
Sector No.4, Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemendra Singh Sever
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
12/08/2025
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner has been convicted in many cases for the
offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in different
Courts situated at Udaipur:
S. Court Name Case No. Decision Sentence Awarded
No. Date
1. Special Judge, (N.I. 710/2018 29.03.2022 01 years S.I. Fine
Act Cases), Rs.10,00,000/- in
Chittorgarh default of payment 01
month simple
imprisonment.
2. Special Judge, (N.I. 412/2022 20.11.2024 01 years two months
Act Cases), S.I. Fine
Chittorgarh Rs.7,50,000/- in
default of payment 03
months simple
imprisonment.
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.
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:53:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36026] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6475/2025]
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 of
02 years and 04 months in respect of aforementioned cases,
which would cause serious miscarriage of justice. He has placed
reliance on the following judgments:
(i). Iqram vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Reported in
(2023) 3 SCC 184
(ii). Gopal Das vs State of Delhi reported in AIR 1978 Delhi 138
5. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate
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.
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(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:53:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36026] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6475/2025]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
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
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:53:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36026] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6475/2025]
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.”
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,
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:53:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36026] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6475/2025]
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.
11. If the sentences are ordered to run consecutively, the
petitioner has to remain incarcerated for a period of nearly 02
years and 04 months in respect of his conviction and sentence in
the aforementioned cases, which in no manner can be said to be
justifiable.
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
the aforementioned cases or else, he shall undergo default
sentences, separately and consecutively. If the petitioner has
undergone the maximum sentences of one year three months,
awarded to him in the above cases, concurrently, and sentences,
in lieu of default of payment of fine, he be released forthwith.
13. The misc. petition is allowed accordingly.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
289-mSingh/-
(Downloaded on 12/08/2025 at 09:53:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)