Laxmi Narain @ Lacchu @ Mukesh vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—By filing this criminal misc. Petition u/s 482 and 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure the accused Petitioner has prayed to direct the Jail Authorities to serve out the sentence concurrently in-stead of subsequent sentences passed in criminal Case Nos. 95/01, 96/01, 97/1, 98/1 and 99/01 by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur and in criminal case No. 155/2001, also passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ''the learned trial Court'').

Brief facts of the case are that the learned trial Court in criminal case Nos. 95/01, 96/01, 97/1, 98/1, 99/01 and 155/2001 convicted the accused Petitioner for the offence under Sections 454 and 380 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine the accused Petitioner shall further undergo three months'' simple imprisonment and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 380 IPC and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine the accused Petitioner shall further undergo one month S.I. In similar criminal case No. 155/2001, the learned trial Court also convicted the accused Petitioner for the offence under Sections 454 and 380 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 454 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused Petitioner shall further undergo three months S.I. and the accused Petitioner further undergo one year S.I. for the offence u/s 380 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused Petitioner shall further undergo three months S.I.

Learned Counsel submits that his only prayer before the Court is that the Jail Authorities be directed to run sentence in all criminal cases concurrently in-stead of subsequently. The accused Petitioner is in judicial lock up since 2001 and in view of the judgments passed by the learned trial Court in aforesaid criminal cases, his sentence will complete in the year 2013, unless this Court passes any order under the provisions of Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure to run the sentence concurrently.

E-contra learned Public Prosecutor submits that the accused Petitioner is a habitual offender and he committed the offence continuously. In such type of offences the accused Petitioner be not given the benefit of Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure

From a bare perusal of the facts of the case and also looking to the fact that the accused Petitioner is a habitual offender, in my considered view such type offender, who is admittedly the present accused Petitioner, is not entitled for the benefit of running his sentence concurrently under the provisions of Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure

In the result this criminal misc. petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.