Allowed

Sanjay @ Sanju Son of Shri Mohan Nath @ Gorakhnath v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Feb 2024CRLW/391/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court exercised inherent powers under Cr.P.C. 482 to direct that a petitioner's multiple sentences for distinct criminal offences run concurrently, citing inattention by trial courts to Section 427 Cr.P.C. discretion, excepting default sentences.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's sentences in six specified criminal cases are directed to run concurrently, exempting him from default imprisonment unless he fails to pay fines.

Sanjay @ Sanju Son of Shri Mohan Nath @… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:9312]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 391/2023

¶4

Sanjay @ Sanju Son Of Shri Mohan Nath @ Gorakhnath, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Sinsolav, Police Station Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur ( At Present In District Jail Tonk)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlendra Sihag For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

22/02/2024

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in six cases (Annexure-1, 4, 6, 8 & 9 of the misc. petition) under Sections 394, 224, 225, 332 & 353 of IPC may be ordered to run concurrently.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in five cases i.e., Criminal Case Nos.452/2016, 478/2016, 475/2016, 470/2016, 4762/2016), petitioner has been convicted under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced to five years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and 10 days’ imprisonment in default of payment of fine and in one case (Sessions Case No.23/2017), the petitioner has been convicted as under:-

(2 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:9312]

[CRLW-391/2023]

U/S 224 IPC- 2 years. S.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine 15 days S.I.

¶19

U/S 225 IPC- 2 years. S.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine 15 days S.I.

¶20

U/S 332 IPC- 3 years. S.I. and fine of Rs.1,500/- in default of payment of fine 20 days S.I.

¶21

U/S 353 IPC- 2 years. S.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine 15 days S.I.

¶22

It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide judgment dated 01.04.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.30/2019 & 31/2019, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 394 IPC passed in judgment dated 07.03.2018 in Criminal Case No.4762/2016, the petitioner has been ordered to be released on period already undergone. The said judgment has been annexed with this petition as Annexure-3.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anup Khati @ Kaliya Khati vs State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1246 and “ Arjun Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2016(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346 and prays that in the interest of justice, this Court may exercise inherent powers for invoking Section 427 CrPC.

¶24

(3 of 6) [CRLW-391/2023]

¶25

[2024:RJ-JP:9312]

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the factual aspects of the matter. However, he has opposed the prayer to invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶27

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

¶28

Section 427 Cr.P.C. provides for sentence on offender who has already been sentenced for another offence. The same is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready-reference:-

¶29

"427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence: - (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:

¶30

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.

¶31

(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."

[2024:RJ-JP:9312]

[CRLW-391/2023]

(4 of 6)

As per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, in normal course a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, if sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, but the court in its discretion based on settled principles may direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. While exercising such discretion, the trial court, appellate court or revisional court, as the case may be, keep in mind several factors. In the instant case, the learned trial courts did not exercise its discretion with respect to concurrency of sentences and thus, there is absolutely non-consideration of the issue about invoking this discretion which is causing great injustice.

¶36

In Arjun Ram vs State of Rajasthan : 2016 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that "to meet the ends of justice, power under Section 482 can be exercised if Court arrives at the conclusion that the Trial Court, Appellate Court or the Revisional Court as the case may be, failed in completing the circuit of justice while invoking/not invoking the discretion vested with it as per Section 427 Cr.P.C.

¶37

It is noteworthy that conviction is all the five cases was recorded within a span of one year and he is serving sentence since 16.06.2016, therefore, in the light of law laid down by Division Bench in the case of Arjun Ram & Ors. (supra), it would

¶38

(5 of 6) [CRLW-391/2023]

¶39

[2024:RJ-JP:9312]

¶40

be appropriate for this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction

¶41

enshrined under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to do substantial justice

¶42

The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. It is directed that the sentence passed in the criminal cases (the details whereof are mentioned hereinbelow) would run concurrently.

¶43

Sr. No.	Case Detail	Judgment	Offences under Sections	Substantive Punishment	Fine / Penalty (Rs.)	Punishment in default
1.	Criminal Case No.452/2016 (CIS No. 836/2016)	Judgment dated 08.03.2018- ACJM, Newai, Tonk	394 IPC	5 years	5000/-	10 days
2.	Criminal Case No. 478/2016 (CIS No. 842/2016)	Judgment dated 24.04.2018- ACJM, Newai, Tonk	394 IPC	5 years	5000/-	10 days
3.	Criminal Case No. 475/2016 (CIS No. 841/2016)	Judgment dated 27.03.2018- ACJM, Newai, Tonk	394 IPC	5 years	5000/-	10 days
4.	Criminal Case No. 470/2016 (CIS No. 839/2016)	Judgment dated 13.03.2018- ACJM, Newai, Tonk	394 IPC	5 years	5000/-	10 days
5.	Criminal Case No. 4762/2016	Judgment dated 07.03.2018 ACJM, Newai, Tonk	394 IPC	5 years	5000/-	10 days
6.	Session Case No.23/2017	Judgment dated 11.06.2019 Sessions Court, Tonk	224 IPC 225 IPC 332 IPC 353 IPC	2 years 2 years 3 years 2 years	1000/- 1000/- 1500/- 1000/-	15 days 15 days 20 days 15 days

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:9312]

[CRLW-391/2023]

However, the petitioner will have to serve default sentences, as the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. The sentences, which the petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be effected by this direction and if the petitioner has not paid the fine/compensation as directed by the trial court, the said sentence would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo default sentences. If petitioner has undergone the sentence and sentence in lieu of default of fine, he be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case.

¶48

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶49

Vikas-123

Sanjay @ Sanju Son of Shri Mohan Nath @ Gorakhnath v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay @ Sanju Son of Shri Mohan Nath @ Gorakhnath v. State of Rajasthan

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

Anurodh Sharma S/O Sunil Sharma B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Dushyant Singh Naruka S/O Mahadev Singh Naruka, B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Chawandsingh Rajput S/O Shri Laxmansingh Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish S/O Prakash, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shambhu Singh S/O Inder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhudayal Sharma S/O Sh. Ramesh Chand, Vs State of Rajasthan