2017 (7) TMI 1424 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Orders Concurrent Sentences for Section 138 Offences, Default Sentences to Run Consecutively

Bhanu Prakash Versus State of Rajasthan, The Director General (Jail), Jaipur And The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur

Bhanu Prakash Versus State of Rajasthan, The Director General (Jail), Jaipur And The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court, exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. to order that sentences awarded in different cases shall run concurrently.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Concurrent Running of Sentences under Section 427 Cr.P.C.The petitioner filed a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 427 Cr.P.C. for different cases in sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requesting that subsequent sentences run concurrently.The petitioner's counsel argued that the matter is covered by a judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench in Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan, where it was decided that the sentences awarded in different cases for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should run concurrently.The Division Bench in Arjun Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. clarified that while Section 427 Cr.P.C. generally mandates that subsequent sentences commence after the expiration of previous sentences, the court has discretion to order concurrent running of sentences. This discretion can be exercised by the trial court, appellate court, or revisional court based on several factors to ensure justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court.The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to correct gross errors and prevent miscarriage of justice if the trial, appellate, or revisional court fails to exercise its discretion under Section 427 Cr.P.C. appropriately.Facts of the Case:The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in 14 different cases for offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, with sentences ranging from 6 months to 2 years of simple imprisonment along with fines. The aggregate sentence amounted to 18 years and 11 months, with an additional 24 months of simple imprisonment in default of payment of fines, totaling approximately 20 years and 11 months.The petitioner had been in jail since 02.12.2011, serving 5 years and 1 month of the total sentence by January 2017. The cases involved similar allegations where the petitioner issued cheques that were dishonoured due to the account being closed.Legal Provisions and Precedents:Section 427 Cr.P.C. allows for the possibility of subsequent sentences running concurrently with previous sentences. The court must consider all necessary factors and precedents when exercising this discretion.The Supreme Court's decisions in State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal, V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr., and Ammavasai & Anr. vs. Inspector of Police & Ors. were cited, emphasizing that concurrent running of sentences can be allowed to meet the ends of justice.Court's Decision:The court concluded that there were no compelling reasons to order that all sentences run consecutively. It was decided that the substantive sentences in all 14 cases would run concurrently, but the petitioner would still need to serve the default sentences for non-payment of fines/compensation consecutively, as Section 427 Cr.P.C. does not permit concurrent running of substantive sentences with default sentences.Conclusion:The petition was allowed, and it was ordered that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. However, the petitioner must serve the default sentences consecutively unless the fines/compensation are paid, in which case the default sentences would not need to be served.