Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13524) on 10 March, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:13524]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1683/2025
Ramesh Kumar S/o Prema Ram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Bhaisana, Tehsil Sojat, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged
In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Roopa Ram S/o Ota Ram, R/o Rampura, Tehsil And Dist.
Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Budha Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
Mr. Ravindra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
10/03/2025
1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following relief:
“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this
criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate
order direction the Jail authority the sentence awarded to the convict
Ramesh Kumar S/o Prema Ram respectively total two criminal cases
(1) criminal case no.782/2017 (CIS No.782/2017), judgment dated
05.09.2023 in (2) criminal case No.694/2017(CIS No.694/2017),
judgment dated 05.09.2023, total sentence two years and 2 months
S.I. shall run concurrently in the interest of justice.”
3. Learned counsel for both the parties fairly concede that the
present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2883/2014 Rajender Kabra Vs.
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:45:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13524] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-1683/2025]
State of Rajasthan decided on 17.02.2017. The relevant portion
of the judgment in Rajender Kabra (supra) reads as under:
“This second criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been preferred
on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer that the sentences awarded to him in 32 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.
The earlier S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.113/2013 preferred by the petitioner
before this Court was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.05.2013. The
order dated 16.05.2013 is reproduced hereunder:
“The present petitioner had issued cheques to various
persons. Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bad
financial condition of the petitioner and the circumstances beyond
his control, all the cheques bounced and petitioner has been
convicted in 32 cases.
In the present petition, prayer has been made that
sentences awarded in 32 cases may be ordered to run
concurrently.
Counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that as per
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is only appellate Court or
revisional Court which can direct that the sentences should run
concurrently and this power cannot be exercised under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner submits that a
directions be given to the State Government to consider the
representation of the petitioner sympathetically, otherwise, if the
sentences are made to run concurrently, the petitioner shall
remain behind the bars for 35 years.
After hearing counsel for the parties, present petition is
disposed of in terms of the statement made by the counsel for the
State.
Let petitioner file a representation to the State Authorities
for remitting the sentence or ordering that the sentence awarded
upon the petitioner in all cases shall ran concurrently. In case,
such a representation is preferred within two weeks’ from today,
the State Authorities shall take a conscious decision thereupon
within two months. Liberty is also granted to petitioner to take
recourse to lawful remedy in case State Authorities decline the
representation.”
The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition claiming that though
pursuant to the order passed by this Court in S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.113/2013, wife of
the petitioner had already moved a representation to the Chief Secretary of the
Government of Rajasthan but the same was returned with a remark that she may move a
representation before the Government of India. It is averred in the petition that as the
prescribed two weeks’ time for making representation on behalf of the petitioner has
already been expired, therefore, the petitioner is again approaching this Court by way of
this criminal misc. petition seeking above mentioned relief.
In the meantime, a reference was made to the Division Bench of this Court to
adjudicate the following question:
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:45:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13524] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-1683/2025]
“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 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, keeps in
mind several factors. While examining such factors, the possibility
of some error cannot be ruled out. Not only the error, but
absolutely non-consideration of the issue about invoking this
discretion, may also be there and that may cause great injustice.
In general, it can be said that every provision of law is meant to
impart justice and to ensure fair and objective treatment with
every subject, but while doing so, the chances of causing injustice
or failure in extending complete justice cannot be denied. To meet
such an eventuality the inherent powers like Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure are meant and those are always open to be
invoked to prevent abuse of process of court and secure the ends
of justice. The inherent 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 vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), this petition is again considered for deciding on merits.
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:45:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13524] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-1683/2025]
The facts necessary for disposal of 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 have been given hereunder:
S. No Case No: Court Date of Sentence + Appeal
decision Fine/compensat
ion
1. 39/2005 A.C.J.M , 23.11.2011 1 year’s Simple
Chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 1,26,150/-
2. 127/2007 J.M. , 24.11.2011 1 year Simple
Chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a
compensation of
Rs. Rs 80,000/-
3. 85/2006 J.M. , 15.11.2011 1 year Simple
Chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a
compensation of
Rs. 3,00,000
4. 178/2005 J.M. , 08.11.2011 1 year Simple
(378/04) Chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a
compensation of
Rs 2,00,000
5. 209/2005(re J.M. , 25.01.2012 1 year Simple
f. no. Chittorgarh imprisonment
210/2005 & and to pay a
211/2005) compensation of
6,60,000/-
6. 151/2005 J.M. , 25.01.2012 1 year Simple
(ref No. Chittorgarh imprisonment
153/05 & and to pay a
154/05) compensation of
Rs. 4,90,000/- .
7. 328/06 A.C.J.M. , 22.03.2012 1 year Simple
Chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 1,50,000/-
8. 327/06 A.C.J.M. , 22.03.2012 1 year Simple
Chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs.
1,50,000/-
329/06 A.C.J.M. , 22.03.2012 1 year Simple
Chittorgarh imprisonment
9. and to pay a fine
of Rs 2,00,000/-
10 246/06 A.C.J.M. 1st 04.01.2012 6 Months
. Class , Simple
Chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs 50,000/-
out of which Rs.
40,000 was
ordered to be
given to
complainant.
11. 245/2006 A.C.J.M., 1st 04.01.2012 1 year Simple
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:45:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13524] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-1683/2025]
class , imprisonment
Chittorgarh and to pay a fine
of Rs. 1,50,000/-
out of which Rs.
1,40,000 was
ordered to be
given to
complainant.
12. 429/2006 J.M., 03.02.2012 1 year Simple
Chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 50,000/-
13. 417/2006 J.M. 03.02.2012 1 year Simple
chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 50,000/-
14. 428/06 J.M. 03.02.2012 1 year Simple
chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 50,000/-
15. 307/2006 J.M. 03.02.2012 1 year Simple
chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 50,000/-
16. 418/2006 J.M. 03.02.2012 6 month Simple
chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 30,000/- .
17. 308/2006 J.M. 03.02.2012 6 month Simple
chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 20,000/- .
18. 456/2006 J.M. 25.01.2012 6 month Simple
chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 20,000/- .
19. 455/2006 J.M. 25.01.2012 1 year Simple
chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 80,000/- .
20. 398/2006 J.M. 25.01.2012 1 year Simple
chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 80,000/- .
21. 399/06 J.M. 25.01.2012 1 year Simple
chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 50,000/- .
22. 400/06 J.M. 25.01.2012 6 months Simple
chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 30,000/- .
23. 283/06 ACJM 20.10.2011 1 year Simple Appeal
Chittorgarh imprisonment (46/2011)
and to pay a fine dismissed &
of Rs. 1,60,000/- order
. confirmed
vide order
dated
04.01.2012
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:45:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13524] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-1683/2025]
24. 198/2006 ACJM 21.09.2011 1 year Simple Appeal(42/2
Chittorgarh imprisonment 011)
and to pay a fine dismissed &
of Rs. 3,50,000/- order
confirmed
vide order
dated
04.01.2012
25. 270/2006 ACJM No.1, 06.09.2011 6 months Simple Appeal
Chittorgarh imprisonment (39/2011)
and to pay a fine dismissed &
of Rs. 1,00,000/- order
. confirmed
vide order
dated
04.01.2012
26. 362/2005 ACJM No.1, 05.09.2011 2 year Simple Appeal
Chittorgarh imprisonment (40/2011)
and to pay a fine dismissed &
of Rs. 1,20,000/- order
. confirmed
vide order
dated
04.01.2012
27. 231/2005 ACJM No.1, 05.09.2011 1 year Simple Appeal
Chittorgarh imprisonment (41/2011)
and to pay a fine dismissed &
of Rs. 23,800/- . order
confirmed
via order
dated
04.01.2012
28. 225/2006 ACJM No.1, 05.11.2011 2 year Simple Appeal
Chittorgarh imprisonment (08/2012)
and to pay a fine dismissed &
of Rs. 3,00,000/- order
. confirmed
vide order
dated
06.06.2012
29. 226/2006 ACJM No.1, 05.11.2011 2 year Simple Appeal
Chittorgarh imprisonment (05/2012)
and to pay a fine dismissed &
of Rs. 2,00,000/- order
. confirmed
vide order
dated
06.06.2012
30. 227/2006 ACJM No.1, 05.11.2011 2 year Simple Appeal
Chittorgarh imprisonment (06/2012
and to pay a fine dismissed &
of Rs. 3,00,000/- order
confirmed
vide order
dated
06.06.2012
31. 228/2006 ACJM No.1, 05.11.2011 2 year Simple Appeal
Chittorgarh imprisonment ( 07/2012)
and to pay a fine dismissed &
of Rs. 2,00,000/- order
confirmed
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:45:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13524] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-1683/2025]
vide order
dated
06.06.2012
32. 482/2012 A.C.J.M.- 1, 07.01.2013 2 year Simple
Chittorgarh imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs. 8,00,000/-
, in default of
payment of fine
further to
undergo 6
months S.I.
As the sentences awarded to the petitioner are in 32 different cases, he is being
made to suffer sentences one after another (consecutively), therefore, the present petition
has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer that a direction needs to be issued that
the petitioner’s sentences should run concurrently.
It is contended that the petitioner was doing business of cosmetics and for the
purpose of running his business smoothly, he took loan from various persons, however, in
the year 2004 due to unavoidable circumstances and financial constrains, the petitioner
suffered huge losses resulting in complete ruin of his business and in those circumstances,
the amount borrowed by him from the various persons could not be repaid.
It is also contended that the petitioner had issued several cheques to the persons
from whom he borrowed money and when those cheques were presented in the bank, the
same could not be honoured, resulting in filing of the complaints against the petitioner and
thereafter the conviction of him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I.Act.
It is argued that going by the sentence calculation, which has been awarded to the
petitioner would effectively mean that the total length of sentences in aggregate would be
around 35 years.
It is also argued that the petitioner is behind the bars since 26.05.2011 and till
January 2017, he had served five years and eight months sentence out of total sentence of
35 years. 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 2046.
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 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 32 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 almost all the complaints except one against the petitioner for
commission of offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act were filed in the years from
2004 to 2007 and one complaint was filed in the year 2011. In all the complaints, similar
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:45:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13524] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-1683/2025]
nature of allegations levelled by the complainants 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 32 complaints filed against the petitioner, he has been convicted for the
offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act and different sentences have been
awarded. The maximum sentence awarded to the petitioner is 2 years’ simple
imprisonment along with fine.
Section 427 CrPC is relevant in the context, which reads as under:
“427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.–
(1) When a person already undergoing a 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.”
As per sub-section (1) of section 427 CrPC when a person already undergoing a
sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such
imprisonment 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 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 32 cases would run
consecutively.
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:45:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13524] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-1683/2025]
The substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in all the 32 cases, if
calculated jointly, is about 35 years. As per information supplied by the Deputy
Superintendent, District Jail, Chittorgarh dated 09.08.2016 to one Navin Kabra son of
Prahalad Rai Kabra, the petitioner is in jail from 26.05.2011 and has not been released for
any period either on parole or interim bail. As such till January 2017, the petitioner served
5 years and 8 months sentence.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ammavasai & Anr. vs. Inspector of Police & Ors.
(supra) while taking into consideration the long duration of sentences awarded to the
appellants in different criminal cases has created a via-media to meet the ends of justice
while observing as under:
“2. Appellants in this case are two. 1st appellant-Ammavasai was
convicted in 4 different cases the occurrence in all of which took place
between 27-3-1990 and 7-5-1990. The offence found against him in
all the cases was under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and in
each case he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7
years. If he is not given the benefit in exercise of the discretion
conferred under Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he may
have to undergo a very long period of 28 years in jail.
3. The 2nd appellant-Deivaraj was convicted in 5 different cases the
occurrence in all of which took place between 21-10-1989 and 7-5-
1990. He was also found guilty under Section 395 of the Indian Penal
Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 7 years in each case. If the benefit conferred under Section
427 is not extended to him, he may have to undergo imprisonment for
a total period of 35 years in jail.
4. On the other hand, we allow the appellants to have the benefit of all
the sentences to run concurrently, he would be out by now after
serving only imprisonment for a period of 7 years awarded in one
case. Both courses are unacceptable to us and, therefore, we thought
of a via-media which would be consistent with the administration of
criminal justice. After bestowing our anxious consideration we
thought that if the appellants would undergo a total period of 14 years
of imprisonment in respect of all the convictions passed against them
that will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.”
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 &
Anr. vs. Inspector of Police & Ors. (supra), I am of the considered view that it would not
be inconsistent with the administration of criminal justice if the petitioner is allowed the
benefit of discretion contained in section 427 of the Code to meet the ends of justice.
However, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K.Bansal vs. State
of Haryana & Ors. and Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr. (supra), the direction for
concurrent running of sentences would be limited only to the substantive sentences alone.
In such circumstances, the present misc. petition is allowed and it is ordered that
the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above referred 32 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
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:45:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13524] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-1683/2025]
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).”
4. Since all the cases against the present petitioner pertains to
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, the
aforementioned precedent law is applicable in the present case as
well.
5. The present criminal misc. petition is accordingly allowed, in
terms of the aforementioned judgment passed in S.B. Criminal
Revision Petition No.2883/2014 Rajender Kabra Vs. State of
Rajasthan. Accordingly, the sentences passed vide impugned
judgment dated 05.09.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate Sirohi in Criminal Case No.782/2017 and the judgment
dated 05.09.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
Sirohi in Criminal Case No.694/2017 respectively are ordered to
run concurrently.
(FARJAND ALI),J
86-divya/-
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:45:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
