Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1671 (MP)

Inayat v. Adarsh Vyapari Sakh Sahkarita Myd.

2014-12-16

ALOK VERMA

body2014
ORDER 1. This common order shall govern the disposal of Criminal Revisions No.1177/2013, 1183/2013, 1180/2013, 1181/2013 and 1307/2013. These criminal revisions are directed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Badwani in Criminal Appeals No.3/2012, 21/2013, 47/2012, 132/2012 and 69/2013 respectively, by which, learned Special Judge dismissed the appeals filed by the present applicant against the order of conviction passed against him by learned JMFC, Badwani in Criminal Cases No.969/2010, 40/2011, 33/2011, 23/2011 and 306/2011 respectively. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of these criminal revisions are that the present applicant was convicted by learned JMFC, Badwani under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him for one years R.I. with fine in Criminal Cases No.969/2010, 40/2011, 33/2011, 23/2011 and two years R.I. with fine in Criminal Cases No.40/2011 and 306/2011. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant stated that he does not want to challenge conviction and sentence including the fine amount imposed on him. However, his short prayer involved in this revisions is that the jail sentence awarded to him in five cases should be ordered to run concurrently under section 427 of CrPC, so that after completing the term, he would come out and try to pay the amount of fine. It was further stated by him that the jail sentence was suspended by the Court, however, as he was not in financial position to deposit the required amount in all the five cases, he remained under custody and he is undergoing the sentence. To decide this question, section 427 of CrPC may be quoted below : Section 427(1) in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (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 imprisonhment 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 setenced 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. (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. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court delivered in the case of State v. Madanlal reported in 2009(II) MPWN 82 (SC). 5. To decide, whether the present applicant is entitled for the benefit of provisions under section 427 of CrPC, the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court delivered in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Asstt. Collector of Customs reported in AIR 1988 SC 2143 may be referred, in which principle of single transaction was propounded by Hon’ble apex Court for concurrent sentence. When all the cases arise out of single transaction, benefit of section 427 of CrPC may be extended. However, when person suffers jail sentence in various cases, which arise from different transactions, such benefit cannot be extended. In the case of Sumlo alias Sumla Himla Bhuriya v. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2007 CriLJ 634 (Guj), it was held that when a person is convicted in three different cases at three different places, such benefit cannot be extended. Also when, the conviction of accused is based on two different cases on two entirely different facts and transactions, benefit of section 427 of CrPC cannot be extended. 6. Applying this single transaction rule on the present cases, it is apparent that the present applicant obtained loans from different persons/societies. Criminal liability arises from different transactions. Five different cases were filed against him, in which, the respondents are five different persons/societies. In such situations, the present applicant is not entitled for the benefit of section 427 CrPC. I find that the present criminal revisions being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present criminal revisions are dismissed. N. A. Sheikh for applicant; K. C. Yadav, Anil Malviya and Ms. Shradha Dixit for respondents.