Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 720 (RAJ)

Madan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2017-03-08

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. This miscellaneous petition has been preferred seeking direction to concurrently run the punishment awarded under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that as many as five criminal cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, were filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was initially convicted on 16.02.2013 in Complaint Case No. 1561/2011 (Consolidate Complaint No. 1609/2002) by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur Metropolitan and sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment and to fine and to further undergo five months simple imprisonment on non-payment of fine. 3. It is contended that the Appellant Court while deciding the Appeal No. 42/2013, modified the order on 20.01.2014 and the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from two years to one and a half years. It is further contended that thereafter, the petitioner was convicted in Complaint No. 385/2013 (150/2004) & 386/2013 (51/2005) on 07.09.2013 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 19, Jaipur, Metropolitan, the sentence imposed was one year and three months on non-payment of fine, in both the complaints. The petitioner thereafter was convicted in Complainant No. 592/2013 by Metropolitan Magistrate No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan, on 24.01.2014 and the sentence imposed was one year and for non-payment of fine, the petitioner was to further undergo imprisonment of four months. Petitioner thereafter, was convicted in Criminal Complaint No. 3260/2012, by Metropolitan Magistrate No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan, vide order dated 03.02.2014, the sentence imposed was one year and the petitioner was to further undergo simple imprisonment of four months on non-payment of fine. 4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the Court below has not dealt with the provisions contained in Section 427 Cr. P.C., 1973 and has not passed any order with regard to the concurrent running of the sentence. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1912/2013 (Arjun Ram v. State of Rajasthan) & others connected petitions decided by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court on 19.01.2016, wherein the Court while dealing with the reference held that section 482 of Cr. P.C., 1973 are meant and it is always open to the Court to invoke the same to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and secure ends of justice and the Court should invoke the same if any injury is caused to the justice. 6. P.C., 1973 are meant and it is always open to the Court to invoke the same to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and secure ends of justice and the Court should invoke the same if any injury is caused to the justice. 6. The Court further held that if the Court arise at a conclusion that Trial Court, Appellate Court or the Revisional Court as the case may be failed to complete circuit of justice, while invoking/not invoking the discretion vested with it as per Section 427 Cr. P.C., 1973 The Court while doing so must keep in mind all the necessary precedents which are to be taken into consideration to exercise the discretion as per Section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on " 2009 (5) SCC 238 , State of Punjab v. Madan Lal" wherein while dealing with the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the Apex Court held that the High Court was right in directing the sentences to run concurrently. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on "2011 (1) WLC 656, Laxminarain Sain v. State of Rajasthan & Ors." & " 2013 (1) WLC 542 , Ajay @ Harendra v. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor", wherein the Rajasthan High Court directed the sentences to run concurrently. 8. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is behind the bar from 16.02.2013. 9. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the judgments on which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance. The Court below in this case have not considered the provision of Section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 and as held in "Arjun Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra)." This Court is inclined to invoke the inherent powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973. 10. As the present petitioner is languishing in jail from 16.02.2013 in relation to conviction in five cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in none of the cases the provision of Section 427 Cr. P.C., 1973 was taken note of by the Court below, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of more than four years in light of the judgment of the Apex Court, State of Punjab v. Madan Lal (supra)". I deem it proper to allow the miscellaneous petition. 11. P.C., 1973 was taken note of by the Court below, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of more than four years in light of the judgment of the Apex Court, State of Punjab v. Madan Lal (supra)". I deem it proper to allow the miscellaneous petition. 11. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. It is directed that the sentences passed in all aforesaid complaints, would run concurrently.