Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 30 (RAJ)

Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-03

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying therein that the sentence awarded upon the petitioner in two different complaints between the same parties by invoking Section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 be made concurrent. 2. The petitioner had issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 12,000/- on 08.03.2006 in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 2 - Kailash Chand Jhalani. The said cheque, on presentation bounced and the complainant/respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Complaint bearing No. 131/2006 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. In the said complaint, on 15.02.2012 the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said Court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the petitioner to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 24,000/-, and in default of payment of fine the petitioner was further directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence has attained finality. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the complainant/respondent No. 2 had also filed another complaint bearing No. 187/2007 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, stating therein that the cheque, in question issued by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- on presentation had bounced. Counsel has further contended that in the second complaint bearing No. 187/2007 the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, vide its impugned order dated 15.02.2012, convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,40,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported as A.I.R. 2010 Supreme Court 1907 , to contend that between the parties if different complaints have been filed, the same should have been tried together. 6. After hearing ld. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported as A.I.R. 2010 Supreme Court 1907 , to contend that between the parties if different complaints have been filed, the same should have been tried together. 6. After hearing ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner and taking into account the mandate of Section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 the present petition is allowed and the substantive sentences awarded upon the petitioner by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Complaint No. 131/2006 and Criminal Complaint No. 187/2007 by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, which have attained finality are ordered to run concurrently. 7. It is clarified that this Court has only ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently and this order shall not affect the sentence of fine awarded and default clause in both the above-noted complaints.