Ravi Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or

direction:-

i. The sentences passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in Cr. Case No.665/2012(63/2010) ""Rajkumar Vs. Ravi Kumar"" so also Cr. Case

No. 671/2012(92/2010) ""Banwari Lal Vs. Ravi Kumar"" as affirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar in Cr.

Appeal No.29/2013 and 28/2013 respectively may kindly be ordered to run concurrently.

ii. The humble petitioner may kindly be ordered to be released from custody from the date of completion of his custody period of one year as awarded

by learned courts below;

iii. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed

in favour of the petitioner"".

Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 07/05/2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh in Criminal Case No.

665/2012 (63/2010), the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo one year simple

imprisonment and to pay Rs.36,500/- to the plaintiff as compensation. He further submits that vide another order of the same date passed by same

Court in Criminal Case No. 671/2012(92/2010), the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to

undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay Rs.2,70,000/- to the plaintiff as compensation. He submits that although in the two cases, the

learned Court below has passed the sentence of one year simple imprisonment but the sentences have not been directed to run concurrently. He,

therefore, prays that the sentences awarded by learned court below in above cases may kindly be ordered to run concurrently. In support of his

submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon para Nos.6 and 7 of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Achalchand

Sancheti vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 560, which reads as under :-

In the present case, the accused petitioner, in all the four cases, has been convicted Under Section 138 of the Act, which broadly punishes

defaulter in commercial transactions on account of dishonoring of the cheques. The period of sentence in first three cases is three months' S.I. with

fine of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 6000/- and Rs. 2000/- respectively and in fourth case being Cr.Case No. 1225/04, he has been sentenced to one year's S.I.

and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In first three cases, he has been sentenced on 18.3.2006 by the ACJM (Economic Offences), Jodhpur and in fourth case,

he has been sentenced to one year's S.I. vide judgment dt. 14.2.2007 passed by the ACJM, CBI Cases, Jodhpur. The accused petitioner is behind the

bars since 22.9.2009. All the four appeals have been dismissed. However, in fourth case, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

wherein he was sentenced to one year's S.I., the term of imprisonment has been reduced to the period already undergone but he has not been

released on account of consecutive sentences in all the four cases.

As discussed above, as a matter of rule, every sentence is to be run consecutively by virtue of Sub- section (1) of Section 427 CrPC but the Court

cannot shut its eyes when the offences relate to the similar transaction alike in the present case regarding dis- honouring of the cheques and can very

well exercise its discretion by ordering the sentences to run concurrently. If both the clauses of Section 427 CrPC are read together, then the

sentencing Court should be liberal in exercising discretion to award the sentences concurrently, especially when the offences, relating to the same

transaction, are committed.

In paramjeet Singh's case (supra), both the sentences were Under Section 379 IPC and in Rahul alias Pappu's case (supra), the offences were

Under Sections 392, 395 and 365 IPC. They were of course crimes of moral turpitude and the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently but in

the present case, the conviction is based on commercial transaction. Though, I would not like to make any comment with regard to any act or omission

being made punishable under this Act and the sentences provided for in it but in practice, as is noticed under the garb of this Act, the Courts have

been flooded with the litigation under this Act and virtually, they are being made alike recovery authorities for those who are facing trial in a fear of

different sentence of imprisonment & fine. I would not like to restrain my words by saying that most of the Courts in this State, particularly at

Districts, Division and Capital Head quarters, are overburdened while disposing of these cases fulfilling the aspirations of the private creditors and

Banks resulting in less importance to the cases of hard core criminals, who are hazardous to the society and innocent persons languishing in jail during

trial. Before summing up, I would like to state that the present case, wherein the accused petitioner has been sentenced in four different cases under

the Act, if his sentences are allowed to run consecutively, then the substantive sentence will be twenty one months and in default, further

imprisonment of six months. In my view, allowing the sentences to run consecutively as provided for under Section 427(1) CrPC in the present case

will be too harsh and tortuous to the accused petitioner resulting in disproportionate order of sentences for the act committed. As it is the foremost

task of administration of justice that while awarding sentences consecutively or concurrently, due regard has to be given to the mens rea behind the

act or omission as well as the period of sentence, which is necessary for disposal of this misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC so as to secure the

ends of justice.

In view of the submissions made at the bar and the fact that the sentences were awarded by the Court below vide its order dated 07/05/2013 in

criminal case Nos.665/2012 (63/2010) & 671/2012(92/2010), the same should run concurrently in the spirit of sub section (1) of Section 427 Cr.P.C.

The Court cannot remain a silent spectator when the offence is related to the similar transaction. As in the present case, the same pertains to Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in such cases, exercise of discretion by ordering the sentences to

run concurrently will meet the ends of justice. A close reading of Section 427 of Cr.PC. will reveal that the sentencing Court should be liberal in

exercising the discretion to award the sentences concurrently, more particularly when the offences are identical and that too not of heinous nature.

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The sentences awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh vide its orders dated 07/05/2013

in Criminal Case Nos.665/2012 (63/2010) & 671/2012(92/2010) are directed to run concurrently and if the sentence of one year awarded by learned

court below has already been served and the petitioner is not needed in any other case, he shall be released from the custody forthwith.