Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2089 (RAJ)

Navab Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2015-12-16

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - All these revision petitions are barred by limitation. Applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have also been preferred in all these revision petitions seeking condonation of delay. 2. The common ground taken in all these revision petitions for condonation of delay is that the petitioner came to know about the fact that the sentences passed by the courts below can be ordered to be run concurrently instead of separately if petitioners with this prayer is moved before the High Court, when the said benefit is extended to the co-accused persons pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in their respective revision petitions on 26.11.2013 and 04.03.2015. 3. The applications filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the present revision petitions have been seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are allowed. The delay in filing the present revision petitions are hereby condoned. 5. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, all the above ten revision petitions are decided by this common order. 6. The petitioner has preferred these revision petitions under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgments and orders dated 30.03.2011 and 03.03.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in respective appeals, whereby the appeals filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgments and orders passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu on different dates convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC has been dismissed and the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu of convicting and sentencing the petitioner has been upheld. The sentence awarded to the petitioner are as under:- Sl. No. Revision Petition No. Offence under Sections Sentence 1 1368/2014 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further undergo 6 months' SI for each offence. 2 1051/2015 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- for each offence. 3 1052/2015 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further undergo 6 months' SI for each offence. 4 1053/2015 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 2 1051/2015 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- for each offence. 3 1052/2015 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further undergo 6 months' SI for each offence. 4 1053/2015 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further undergo 6 months' SI for each offence. 5 1054/2015 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further undergo 6 months' SI for each offence. 6 1055/2015 420 & 120-B IPC 3 years' SI along with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo 3 months' SI and 6 months' SI respectively. 7 1056/2015 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further undergo 6 months' SI for each offence. 8 1057/2015 420 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further undergo 6 months' SI. 9 1058/2015 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further undergo 6 months' SI for each offence. 10 1059/2015 420 & 406 IPC 3 years' RI along with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further undergo 6 months' SI for each offence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has stated that he does not want to press these revision petitions on merits and simply seeking direction from this Court that the sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu in all these above mentioned revision petitions may be directed to run concurrently. 8. In support of the above contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Punjab v. Madan Lal reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2836 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Achalchand Sancheti v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 560 , wherein it is held that the sentence awarded to an accused in different cases for similar nature of offences can be made concurrent as per the Section 427 Cr.P.C. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has not seriously opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor has not seriously opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 10. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the cases of State of Punjab v. Madan Lal (supra) and Achalchand Sancheti v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the prayer made by the petitioner is liable to be granted as all the cases in which the petitioner has been convicted are the cases involving the similar nature of offences.Resultantly, these criminal revision petitions are disposed of. The conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court are hereby confirmed, however, the sentences awarded to the petitioner in all the above mentioned cases are directed to run concurrently.Revisions disposed of. *******