Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2811 (RAJ)

Mahavir v. State of Rajasthan

2011-12-22

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner praying therein as under: "To admit and allow this criminal misc. petition and the concerned Jail Authority or the concerned courts below may kindly be directed for concurrent running of sentences awarded to the petitioner in Criminal Case no. 98/08 decided on 11.6.2008, Cr. Case no. 106/08 decided on 8.7.2008 and Cr. Case no. 314/08 decided on 16.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kishangarh, District Ajmer." 2. The sentences awarded to the petitioner run as under : Cr. Case No.98/08. For the offence under section 379 Indian Penal Code awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and In default of payment of fine, further three months simple imprisonment. Cr. Case No.106/08. For the offence under section 379 Indian Penal Code awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further three months simple imprisonment. Cr. Case No.314/08. For the offence under section 379 Indian Penal Code awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and In default of payment of fine, further three months simple imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been sentenced under section 379 In different criminal cases by the same Court as aforesaid and he is undergoing sentence In Central Jail, Ajmer. 4. The limited prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner to seek direction by this Court to run the sentences awarded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh in three different cases as aforesaid concurrently and not separately. Because if the sentences were allowed to run separately, the petitioner will have to serve the sentence of nine years for a similar offence under section 379 Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the interest of justice, the sentences awarded to the accused petitioner In the aforesaid cases should be allowed to run concurrently. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the interest of justice, the sentences awarded to the accused petitioner In the aforesaid cases should be allowed to run concurrently. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention towards the ratio decided in the cases Mohan Lal @ Hanuman Singh v. State, 1987 RCC 140 ; Jeevan & others v. State, 1970 WLN (1) 449 ; Bachna Ram v. State, 1984 RCC 3067 ; Janta Kumar Banerjee v. State, AIR 1995 Cal. 632 ; Mahavir Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2007 (2) RCC 202 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs, reported in 1989 Cr.L.J. 283 wherein the sentences awarded to the accused were ordered to run concurrently. 7. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards section 427 Criminal Procedure Code and a judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay @ Balya v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2010 (1) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 811 . 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contention made on behalf of the petitioner and contended that sentences awarded to the accused petitioner in different criminal cases should not be allowed to run concurrently. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through section 427. Section 427 reads as under. 427. Sentence an 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 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 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. 10. (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. 10. In the case of "Ajay @ Balya" (supra), this Court issued direction to run sentences concurrently wherein reasonings given in Pankaj Soni's case (SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.741/09 and two other misc. petitions) shall apply mutatis mutandis to that case and the writ petition was allowed. The same analogy is applied to the present case also. 11. In the result, looking to the provisions of section 427 Cr.PC. and the ratio decided in the aforesaid cases and specially the case of Ajay @ Balya v. State of Rajasthan (supra), this misc. petition is also allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner in Criminal Cases no. 98/08 decided on 11.6.2008, Cr. Case no.106/08 decided on 8.7.2008 and Cr. Case. no. 314/08 decided on 16.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, District Ajmer shall run concurrently.Petition allowed. *******