Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1020 (RAJ)

Sharad Kumar Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan

2008-04-11

G.S.MEHTA, SARRAF

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks direction that the sentences awarded to him in two criminal cases run currently. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this misc. petition are that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate no. 2, Ajmer vide judgment dated 6.12.2004 passed in criminal case no. 189/2003 Laxmi Tiwari v. Sharad Kumar Tiwari convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of rupees three lakhs and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for four months. In another case no. 13/2004 Laxmi Tiwari v. Sharad Kumar Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate (First Class) East, Ajmer vide judgment dated 13.9.2005 convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two years and a compensation to the tune of rupees five lakhs was awarded to the complainant Laxmi Tiwari (respondent no.2) under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed appeals against both the judgments. Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer by two separate judgments dated 15.11.2006 in criminal appeal no. 109/2005 and criminal appeal no. 69/2006 dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforementioned two judgments passed in appeals the petitioner filed two revision petitions by the High Court dated 9.8.2007 the criminal revision petition no. 1327/2006 filed against the judgment dated 15.11.2006 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer in criminal appeal no. 109/2005 was dismissed whereas the criminal revision petition no. 1328/2006 filed against the judgment dated 15.11.2006 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer in criminal appeal no. 79/2006 was partly allowed to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner was reduced to simple imprisonment for one year. The petitioner has now filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the sentences passed in the above two cases be ordered to run concurrently. 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 in spite of the service of notice on her. 4. Learned public prosecutor has submitted that State has no say in the matter.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.Section 427(1) Cr.PC. reads as under : 427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. - 1. 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 in spite of the service of notice on her. 4. Learned public prosecutor has submitted that State has no say in the matter.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.Section 427(1) Cr.PC. 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 currently with such previous sentence. 5. It is thus clear that under Section 427 Cr.P.C. the court may direct the sentence of imprisonment in the subsequent conviction to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment previously passed. 6. The High Court has power in appropriate cases to entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by invoking its inherent powers at any time subsequent to the decision in a given case if the trial court or the appellate court or the revisional court has not exercised its discretion under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present matter I deem it just and proper to allow this petition and to direct concurrent running of the sentences of imprisonment passed against the petitioner for securing the ends of justice. 8. In the result, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner in the aforementioned two cases shall run currently but the fine shall be paid and in default of payment of the fine the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as awarded to him by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.Petition Allowed. *******