Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sohan Lal Prajapat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28325) on 1 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28325]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4439/2025
Sohan Lal Prajapat S/o Shri Narayanlal Ji Prajapat, Aged About
49 Years, R/o In Front Of Ambamata Temple, Ambamata Ki
Ghati, Teetardi, Teh. Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj) (Currently
Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ojas Shakdwipeeya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Rajendra Singh Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
01/07/2025
By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following
relief:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to invoke the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to
run the sentences awarded by trial court vide
judgements dated 18.08.2023 in Criminal Case Nos.
42/2016, 242/2016 & 7615/2017 and judgements
dated 19.02.2024 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 397/2023,
398/2023 & 399/2023 respectively under section 138
of NI Act to be run concurrently.
Any such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present
criminal misc. petition are that the petitioner was tried, convicted
and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga,
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:41:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28325] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4439/2025]
District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I. Act, details whereof is being given here under:
Sr. Case No. Court Date of Sentence
No. Decision Fine/Compe
nsation
1. Reg. Cr. Case NI-1 Udaipur 18.08.2023 1 years S.I.
No.81/2016 and to pay a
compensation
of
Rs.4,00,000/-
(3 m default)
Cr. Appeal SC/ST, Udaipur 19.02.2024 1 years S.I.
No.399/2023 and to pay a
compensation
of
Rs.4,00,000/-
(3 m default)
2. Reg. Cr. Case NI-1 Udaipur 18.08.2023 2 years S.I.
No.242/2016 and to pay a
compensation
of
Rs.20,00,000/-
(3 m default)
Cr. Appeal SC/ST, Udaipur 19.02.2024 2 years S.I.
No.398/2023 and to pay a
compensation
of
Rs.20,00,000/-
(3 m default)
3. Reg. Cr. Case NI-1 Udaipur 18.08.2023 6 months S.I.
No.7615/2017 and to pay a
compensation
of
Rs.1,50,000/-
(3 m default)
Cr. Appeal SC/ST, Udaipur 19.02.2024 6 months S.I.
No.397/2023 and to pay a
compensation
of
Rs.1,50,000/-
(3 m default)
Learned counsel for the parties fairly conceded that the
present case is squarely covered by a decision rendered in the
case of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2883/2014 (Rajendra
Kabra vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 17.02.2017
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:41:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28325] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4439/2025]
wherein, a coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to hold as
under:
“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. MadanLal,
V.K.Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Shyam
Palvs. 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 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).”
Having considered the joint submission made by the parties
at bar, this Court is of the opinion that since both the cases
against the petitioner pertain to offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, the aforesaid
precedent law is applicant in the present case.
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:41:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28325] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4439/2025]
The present criminal misc. petition is accordingly allowed, in
terms of the above mentioned precedent passed in the Rajendra
Kabra (Supra).
Accordingly, all the substantive sentences imposed upon the
petitioner vide judgment dated 18.08.2023 (Regular Criminal Case
No.81/2016), judgment dated 18.08.2023 (Regular Criminal Case
No.242/2016) and vide judgment dated 18.08.2024 (Regular
Criminal Case No.7615/2017); vide order dated 19.02.2024
(Criminal Appeal No.399/2023), vide order dated 19.02.2024 (Cr.
Appeal No.398/2023) and vide order dated 19.02.2024 (Criminal
Appeal No.397/2023) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
(N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Udaipur, are ordered to run concurrently.
However, the sentences of fine and the sentences in default
of payment of fine/compensation imposed upon the petitioner
shall not be affected. If the petitioner has not paid the
fine/compensation as directed by the learned trial court, the said
sentences would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the
petitioner pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to
undergo the default sentences (sentences awarded by the learned
trial court in default of payment of fine/compensation).
All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
97-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:41:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)