S.
No",Case No.,Court,"Date of
decision",Sentence default,Appeal
1.,"443/2015
(1138/06)
Reg.
Criminal
(sneh lata v.
Pushpa
Movies)","Spcl. Judicial
Magistrate
(N.I. Act,
cases) No. 1,
Udaipur",2.12.15,"Six month simple
imprisonment & in
default of payment two
months simple
imprisonment","ADJ No. - 5,
Udaipur
Criminal
Appeal No.
50/2015
CIS No.
1721/15
Decided on:
23.05.16
2.,"236/2012
(1030/11)
Reg.
Criminal
(Ankur
Sharma V.
Pushpa)","Spcl. Judicial
Magistrate
(N.I. Act,
cases) No. 1,
Udaipur",10.8.16,"Six month simple
imprisonment & fine of
Rs. 8,80,000/-","ADJ No. - 5,
Udaipur
Criminal
Appeal No.
24/2016
CIS No.
273/16
Decided on:
20.12.16
3.,"Reg.
Criminal
No. 77/12
(Tushar
D ave V.
Pushpa
Movies)","Spcl. Judicial
Magistrate
(N.I. Act,
cases) No. 1,
Udaipur",22.2.14,"One year simple
imprisonment & fine of
Rs. 8,00,000/- against
one cheque.
One year simple
imprisonment & fine of
rs. 8,00,000 against
another cheque.
Both sentences were","ADJ No. - 5,
Udaipur
Criminal
Appeal No.
44/2015
CIS No.
1409/15
Decided on:
,,,,run separately,14.12.16
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 asentence 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.â€",,,,,
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 cases would run consecutively.""",,,,,
In all the 3 cases filed against the petitioner, she has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I.Act and has been",,,,,
sentenced as aforesaid. The maximum sentence awarded to the petitioner is 1 year’s simple imprisonment along with fine.,,,,,
The substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in all the 3 cases, if calculated jointly, is about 2 years. As per information supplied by the",,,,,
Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur dated 26.04.2018 to G.A. Office, the petitioner is in jail since 23.05.2016Â and has not been released for",,,,,
any period either on parole or interim bail. As such till 26.04.2018, she served 1 year, 11 months and 3 days 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 in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Rajender vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I am of the considered view that ends of justice",,,,,
would be met if the petitioner is granted benefit of section 427 of the CrPC and in my opinion, it would not be inconsistent with the administration of",,,,,
criminal justice.,,,,,
In Shimbhu Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), a petition under section 482 CrPC was filed after the decision of the High Court in the criminal",,,,,
appeal and, therefore, the Division Bench has held that after final decision in the appeal, the petition under section 482 CrPC with a prayer for issuing",,,,,
directions to run different sentences concurrently is not maintainable as this Court has become functus officio. However, in the present case, a",,,,,
criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment of appellate court is pending consideration before this Court and has not yet been,,,,,
decided, and in respect of two other cases, no appeal or revision is filed by the petitioner before this Court. Hence, it cannot be said that this Court has",,,,,
become functus officio. As such the above referred judgment has no applicability.,,,,,
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 3 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, she is not required to undergo default sentences (sentences awarded by the trial courts in default of",,,,,
payment of fine/compensation).,,,,,
A copy of this order be placed in S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.594/2016.,,,,,
