Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 43 (RAJ)

Shakir v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By filing this criminal misc. petition under section 482 read with section 427 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks direction that the sentences awarded in original criminal case Nos.347/2006 and 348/2006 which were registered for the offence under section 392/34 IPC and tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide its orders dated 25.09.2006 & 26.09.2006 by which petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years, be directed to run concurrently. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the record as well as the facts and circumstances of the cases. 3. Before going into merits of the case the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 imprison-ment 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 subse-quent 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 commence 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 further drawn attention of the Court to the judgment dated 09.12.2010 rendered in the case of Laxminarain Sain vs. State of Raj. & Ors (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2356/2008). He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment rendered in the case of Hardeva and others vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2004(2) RCC 684. 5. & Ors (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2356/2008). He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment rendered in the case of Hardeva and others vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2004(2) RCC 684. 5. From a bare perusal of the above provision, it is revealed that when sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment for life is imposed upon a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment (but no 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. 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 in the aforesaid authority and taking into consideration the facts of the cases in hand against the petitioner as also the quantum of cummulated 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 two cases mentioned in para 1 of this petition namely; case no.347/2006 decided on 25.09.2006 and case no.348/2006 decided on 26.09.2006 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.