Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1362 (RAJ)

Kamal Kumar Mina v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2022-04-29

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2022
ORDER 1. Since these five Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions arise out of same offence pertaining for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, which are being decided by this common order. 2. The learned trial Court passed the following orders:- Sr.No. Case No. and Court Offence under Section Date Of judgment and sentence 1. Special Judicial Magistrate Negotiable Instrument Act Cases No.2 Kota CIS No.22898/2016 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 16.03.2020 2 years Simple Imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- in default to further undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment 2. Special Judicial Magistrate Negotiable Instrument Act Cases No.2 Kota CIS No.34118/2014 Case No.791/2016 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 15.06.2019 1 year Simple Imprisonment compensation of Rs. 11,45,000/- in default to further undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment 3. Special Judicial Magistrate Negotiable Instrument Act Cases No.2 Kota CIS No.1326/2017 Case No.791/2016 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 15.06.2019 1 year Simple Imprisonment to pay compensation Rs. 1,60,000/- in default to further undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment 4. Special Judicial Magistrate Negotiable Instrument Act Cases No.2 Kota CIS No.200889/2016 case 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 25.01.2018 1 year 6 months Simple Imprisonment to pay compensation Rs. 7,50,000/- in default to further undergo 4 months Simple Imprisonment 5. Special Judicial Magistrate Negotiable Instrument Act Cases No.2 Kota CIS No.3774/2016 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 25.01.2019 6 Months Simple Imprisonment to pay compensation Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to further undergo 1 months Simple Imprisonment 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act in difference 5 cases on different dates. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a poor person and has no source of income. The economic condition of the family of petitioner is not sound. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per Section 427 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, when a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, the court has power to direct for subsequent sentence, to run concurrently. So, sentence awarded to the petitioner be directed to run concurrently. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner have placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) State Of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal reported in 2009 R.C.C. (SC) 549; (2) Pankaj Soni Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2010(2) R.C.C. 662; (3) Mahavir Vs. So, sentence awarded to the petitioner be directed to run concurrently. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner have placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) State Of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal reported in 2009 R.C.C. (SC) 549; (2) Pankaj Soni Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2010(2) R.C.C. 662; (3) Mahavir Vs. State Of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (3) WLC (Raj.) 58 and (4) Ajay @ Harendra Vs. State Of Rajasthan reported in 2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 542. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that sentence awarded to the petitioner cannot be ordered to run concurrently because these transactions are not based on a single transaction. Leaned counsel for the respondents further submitted that conviction awarded in five cases, complainants are separate. Petitioner had taken amount from complainants separately. So, conviction of the petitioner cannot be ordered to run concurrently. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. K. Bansal Vs. State Of Haryana & Ors. etc.etc. In Criminal Appeal Nos.836-851/2013 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl) Nos. 10023-10038/2011) decided on 05.07.2013. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the impugned orders. 8. Section 427 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence -(1) When a person already undergoing 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 imprisonment 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 sentenced 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." 9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been convicted in five different complaints. (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." 9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been convicted in five different complaints. It is also admitted position that the petitioner had taken money from different persons and each of them had filed complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act in which petitioner was convicted on different dates by the Court below. Petitioner had not filed any appeal or revision against these convictions. It is also admitted position that sentence awarded to the petitioner does not arise out of a single transaction. The Apex Court in its pronouncement in the judgment of V. K. Bansal’s case (Supra), clearly stated that when sentence passed by the Court below in different complaints which are arises out of single transaction in which, Court can order to run the sentence concurrently. In my considered opinion, the present petitioner was convicted in different transaction on different complaint, so, the present petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C. So, judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in this case. Therefore, present petitions being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed. Hence, these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.