Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2043 (RAJ)

Laxminarain Sain v. State of Raj.

2010-12-09

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By filing this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.7.2008 passed by the Jail Superintendent and further prayed that sentence of the accused petitioner in all the five cases be directed to run concurrently. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PP for the State. I have also perused the record as well as the case cited at the Bar and have also considered the facts and circumstances of the cases. 3. Before going into merits of the case the learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court to Section 427 Cr.P.C. which is reproduced 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 directed 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, while undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commenced immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence." 4. He has drawn attention of the Court to the case of Hardeva and others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004(2) RCC 684 and submits that the present case is sequarely covered with the case of Hardeva and others (supra). 5. From a bare perusal of the above provision, it is plain that when sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment for life is imposed upon a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment (but not imprisonment for life) such subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment already imposed and being undergone unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence, subject however, to the proviso given therein and the special provision made in sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Code in respect of convicts already undergoing life imprisonment. 6. 6. It is apparent from the above section that the Court may direct subsequent sentences shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. But such a direction may be given by the court after taking into consideration the facts of the case while passing the subsequent sentences. 7. Thus, following the law laid down in the aforesaid authority and taking into consideration the facts of the cases in hand against the petitioner as also the quantum of cumulated sentences passed against him in these cases, I deem it just and reasonable to allow this petition. 8. Consequently, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and it is directed that the substantive sentences imposed upon him in all the five cases mentioned in para 1 of this petition namely; case No. 1524/06 decided on 27.11.2006, case No. 1525/06, decided on 27.11.2007, case No. 1639/06 decided on 23.11.2007, case No. 1637/06 decided on 23.11.2007 and case No. 950/2006 decided on 24.1.2008 shall run concurrently with the substantive sentences imposed upon him. However, the sentences imposed upon the petitioner in default of payment of fine in all these cases shall remain intact and shall be undergone by him separately if the fines are not deposited. The sentences so modified shall be given effect to by the concerned court and the Jail Authorities.