Allowed

Mangali Bai W/O Narku D/O Jumma, v. Sitaram Suman S/O Shri Nenakram

Rajasthan HC17 May 2024CRLMP/2959/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, convicted in two cases under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to ten months rigorous imprisonment in each, sought direction that the sentences run concurrently under Section 427 Cr.P.C. The Court allowed the petition, directing that the substantive sentences run concurrently, clarifying that this applies only to imprisonment and not to fines or sentences in default.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentences of imprisonment directed to run concurrently.

Mangali Bai W/O Narku D/O Jumma, Vs Sitaram Suman S/O… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23519]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2959/2024

¶4

Mangali Bai W/o Narku D/o Jumma, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Cad Chauraha Fayar Coloni Karyalaya Chambal Garden Sthit Nagar Nigam Karyalaya Kota Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sitaram Suman S/o Shri Nenakram, R/o 446 Sarkari School Ke Pas Shivpura Bhitariya Kund Kota Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan with Mr. Faziya G. Khan For Respondent (s) Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

17/05/2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for offence

¶15

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in two cases by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (N.I. Act Cases) No.2, Kota, the details whereof are produced hereinbelow:-

¶16

S.No.	Case No.	Date of Decision	Sentence
1.	433/2017	20.08.19	Ten Months S.I. and fine of Rs.1,15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment
2.	434/2017	20.08.19	Ten Months S.I. and fine of Rs.1,15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment

[2024:RJ-JP:23519]

[CRLMP-2959/2024]

(2 of 3)

The petitioner assailed her conviction and sentence passed in aforementioned cases by way of filing separate appeals (Nos.482/2019 and 481/2019) before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Kota. The learned appellate court partly allowed the appeals preferred by the petitioner and while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, reduced the sentence to seven months. However, the learned appellate court did not interfere in the fine/compensation part.

¶21

Now, the prayer of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. and judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.2883/2014, Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 17.02.2017, the substantive sentence of imprisonment should be directed to run concurrently.

¶22

Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

¶23

“427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.

¶24

(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 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 imprison- ment 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.

¶25

(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 con- currently with such previous sentence.”

[2024:RJ-JP:23519]

[CRLMP-2959/2024]

(3 of 3)

In Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan, conviction was recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in 32 cases. This Court directed that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. However, the fine as well as sentences in default of fine would go as per the direction of the trial Judge. Section 427 Cr.P.C. does not cover the area of fine and default in payment of fine.

¶30

Learned State Counsel submits that Section 427 Cr.P.C. is applicable only in the matter of life imprisonment.

¶31

I do not find that the provision is applicable to the cases of life imprisonment only and is not applicable in the matter of other punishments of imprisonment.

¶32

Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The misc. petition is allowed.

¶33

However, it is made clear that only substantive sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently.

¶34

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶35

GAUTAM JAIN /55

Mangali Bai W/O Narku D/O Jumma, v. Sitaram Suman S/O Shri Nenakram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangali Bai W/O Narku D/O Jumma, v. Sitaram Suman S/O Shri Nenakram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dulichand S/O Manguram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagjeet Singh @ Jeetu Banna S/O Shri Sarvadaman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak D. Thakur Son of Dilip S Thakur Vs State of Rajasthan

Birdi Chand Saini S/O Shri Ganesh Saini, Vs Rajendra Nagpal S/O Shri Keshwanand Nagpal

Lalit Sharma S/O Deepchand Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Chirag Traders Vs Kamal Senetary and Hardware Store