S.
No",Case No:,Court,"D a t e of
decision",Sentence + Fine/compensation,Appeal
1.,39/2005,"A . C . J . M ,",23.11.2011,1 year’s Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.,
2.,127/2007,"Chittorgarh
J . M . ,
Chittorgarh",24.11.2011,"1,26,150/-
1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of
Rs. Rs 80,000/-",
3.,85/2006,"J . M . ,
Chittorgarh",15.11.2011,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of
Rs. 3,00,000",
4.,178/2005 (378/04),"J . M . ,
Chittorgarh",08.11.2011,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of
Rs 2,00,000",
5.,"209/2005(ref. no.
210/2005 &
211/2005)","J . M . ,
Chittorgarh",25.01.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of
6,60,000/-",
6.,"151/2005 (ref No.
153/05 & 154/05)","J . M . ,
Chittorgarh",25.01.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of
Rs. 4,90,000/- .",
7.,328/06,"A .C .J .M. ,
Chittorgarh",22.03.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,50,000/-",
8.,327/06,"A .C .J .M. ,
Chittorgarh",22.03.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,50,000/-",
9.,329/06,"A .C .J .M. ,
Chittorgarh",22.03.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs
2,00,000/-",
10,246/06,"A.C.J.M. 1st
Class ,
Chittorgarh",04.01.2012,"6 Months Simple 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
class ,
Chittorgarh",04.01.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment 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.,
Chittorgarh",03.02.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-",
13.,417/2006,J.M. chittorgarh,03.02.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-",
14.,428/06,J.M. chittorgarh,03.02.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-",
15.,307/2006,J.M. chittorgarh,03.02.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-",
16.,418/2006,J.M. chittorgarh,03.02.2012,"6 month Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
30,000/- .",
17.,308/2006,J.M. chittorgarh,03.02.2012,"6 month Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
20,000/- .",
18.,456/2006,J.M. chittorgarh,25.01.2012,"6 month Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
20,000/-.",
19.,455/2006,J.M. chittorgarh,25.01.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 80,000/-
.",
20.,398/2006,J.M. chittorgarh,25.01.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 80,000/-
.",
21.,399/06,J.M. chittorgarh,25.01.2012,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-
.",
22.,400/06,J.M. chittorgarh, 25.01.2012,"6 months Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
30,000/- .",
23.,283/06,"ACJM
Chittorgarh",20.10.2011,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,60,000/- .","Appeal (46/2011) dismissed &
order confirmed vide order dated
04.01.2012
24.,198/2006,"ACJM
Chittorgarh",21.09.2011,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
3,50,000/-","Appeal(42/20 11) dismissed &
order confirmed vide order dated
04.01.2012
25.,270/2006,"A C J M No.1,
Chittorgarh",06.09.2011,"6 months Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- .","Appeal (39/2011) dismissed &
order confirmed vide order dated
04.01.2012
26.,362/2005,"A C J M No.1,
Chittorgarh",05.09.2011,"2 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,20,000/- .","Appeal (40/2011) dismissed &
order confirmed vide order dated
04.01.2012
27.,231/2005,"A C J M No.1,
Chittorgarh",05.09.2011,"1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 23,800/-
.","Appeal (41/2011) dismissed &
order confirmed via order dated
04.01.2012
28.,225/2006,"A C J M No.1,
Chittorgarh",05.11.2011,"2 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
3,00,000/- .","Appeal (08/2012) dismissed &
order confirmed vide order dated
06.06.2012
29.,226/2006,"A C J M No.1,
Chittorgarh",05.11.2011,"2 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
2,00,000/- .","Appeal (05/2012) dismissed &
order confirmed vide order dated
06.06.2012
30.,227/2006,"A C J M No.1,
Chittorgarh",05.11.2011,"2 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
3,00,000/-","Appeal (06/2012 dismissed & order
confirmed vide order dated
06.06.2012
31.,228/2006,"A C J M No.1,
Chittorgarh",05.11.2011,"2 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
2,00,000/-","Appeal ( 07/2012) dismissed &
order confirmed vide order dated
06.06.2012
32.,482/2012,"A.C.J.M.- 1,
Chittorgarh",07.01.2013,"2 year Simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
8,00,000/- , in default of payment of fine further to undergo 6
months S.I.",
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.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 32 cases would run consecutively.,,,,,
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.â€,,,,,
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 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).â€,,,,,
5. 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.,,,,,
6. 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 judgments dated 08.09.2015, 05.02.2014,",,,,,
04.04.2016 & 08.06.2016 passed by the learned courts below in case No.459/2015, 520/2013, 09/2016 & 145/2014 (459/2004) respectively are",,,,,
ordered to run concurrently.,,,,,
