State of Raj v. Shrinivas) alongwith the sentence awarded to him vide judgment dated

: Mr. Monu Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 14/02/2025 Order

1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 read with Section 467/468 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue directions to run both the sentences concurrently, which have been imposed upon the petitioner vide judgment dated 04.02.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli (Raj.). in Regular Criminal Case No.462/2019 (State of Raj. Vs. Shrinivas) alongwith the sentence awarded to him vide judgment dated 28.01.2021, passed by the Court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas Cases, Karauli (Raj.) (District & Sessions Judge, Karauli) in Session Case No.43/2019 (State Vs. Srinivas & Ors.).

2. The brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dated

28.01.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas Cases, Karauli (Raj.) (District & Sessions Judge, Karauli), [2025:RJ-JP:6633] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7430/2024] the petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and was sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. When the petitioner was undergoing the sentence under the judgment dated 28.01.2021, he has been convicted vide judgment dated 04.02.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli (Raj.) in Regular Criminal Case No.462/2019 for offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo three years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo fifteen days' additional simple imprisonment.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of Section 427 (1) of Cr.P.C. and corresponding Section 457 of B.N.S.S., provides for concurrently running the sentence awarded to the present petitioner by separate judgments of conviction.

5. Section 427 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "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: 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." [2025:RJ-JP:6633] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7430/2024]

6. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2237/2007 (Rahul @ Pappu Vs. State of Raj.) decided on 05.02.2009, which has been quoted as under:- "6. As per Section 427 (1) of the Cr.P.C. 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. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the sentence passed by the Gurgaon Court cannot be ordered to run concurrently, along with the sentences passed by the Courts of Rajasthan, meaning thereby that no order can be passed by this Court for the sentence awarded by the Gurgaon Court, but the sentences passed by the Courts having Rajasthan jurisdiction, can be ordered to run concurrently. 8. The petitioner has been convicted for the two offence by the Magistrate having jurisdiction of Rajasthan, which falls under the jurisdiction of this Court. In one of the cases, he has been sentenced to undergo 7-years imprisonment and in another case for 3-years imprisonment. 9. The relevant paragraphs of the cited judgment i.e. Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention) Ahmedabad & Others (supra) are as under : sentencing.

9. The Section relates to administration of criminal justice and provides procedure The sentencing court is, therefore, required to consider and make an appropriate order as to how the sentence passed in the subsequent case is to run. Whether it should be concurrent or consecutive? 10. The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called single transaction concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no [2025:RJ-JP:6633] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7430/2024] application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different.

10. From bare perusal of the above cited judgment, it reveals that if a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different . 11. In the instant case, the petitioner has been convicted under the Indian Penal Code and after having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice to allow this miscellaneous petition. 12. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in F.I.R. Nos.106/2000 and 117/2000 shall run concurrently, but the sentences imposed upon him for default in payment of fine shall be undergone by him consecutively."

7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

9. Heard. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record.

10. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, so also the provisions contained under Section 427 Cr.P.C. and the observations of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of Rahul @ Pappu (supra), this Court deems just and proper to exercise inherent jurisdiction and allow the present petition.

11. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner vide judgment dated 04.02.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli (Raj.) in Regular Criminal Case No.462/2019 shall run concurrently with [2025:RJ-JP:6633] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7430/2024] the sentence which the petitioner is undergoing in view of the judgment 28.01.2021, passed by the Court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area Cases, Karauli (Raj.) (District & Sessions Judge, Karauli) in Session Case No.43/2019.

12. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. ARTI SHARMA /55 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J