Indraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 31 July, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
1. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 452 / 2017
Indraj Singh S/o Shri Manguram B/c Jat, R/o Sarai Police Station
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. (At Present in Central Jail,
Bikaner).
—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
—-Respondent

Connected With

2. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 453 / 2017
Indraj Singh S/o Shri Manguram B/c Jat, R/o Sarai Police Station
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. (At Present in Central Jail,
Bikaner).

—-Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

—-Respondent

3. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 454 / 2017
Indraj Singh S/o Shri Manguram B/c Jat, R/o Sarai Police Station
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. (At Present in Central Jail,
Bikaner).

—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

—-Respondent

4. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 455 / 2017
Indraj Singh S/o Shri Manguram B/c Jat, R/o Sarai Police Station
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. (At Present in Central Jail,
Bikaner).

—-Petitioner

Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

—-Respondent

5. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 456 / 2017
Indraj Singh S/o Shri Manguram B/c Jat, R/o Sarai Police Station
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. (At Present in Central Jail,
Bikaner).

—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

(2 of 5)
[ CRLR-452/2017]

—-Respondent

6. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 457 / 2017
Indraj Singh S/o Shri Manguram B/c Jat, R/o Sarai Police Station
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. (At Present in Central Jail,
Bikaner).

—-Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

—-Respondent

7. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 458 / 2017
Indraj Singh S/o Shri Manguram B/c Jat, R/o Saiyo Ki Dhani Tan
Sarai Police Station Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu. (At Present in
Central Jail, Bikaner).

—-Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

2. Yasin Mohammed S/o Shri Sadik Mohammed B/c Maniyar, R/o
Ward No.10, Mohalla Sarai Singhana, District Jhunjhunu.

—-Respondents

8. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 459 / 2017
Indraj Singh S/o Shri Manguram B/c Jat, R/o Sarai Police Station
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. (At Present in Central Jail,
Bikaner).

—-Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

—-Respondent

9. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 460 / 2017
Indraj Singh S/o Shri Manguram B/c Jat, R/o Saiyo Ki Dhani Tan
Sarai Police Station Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu. (At Present in
Central Jail, Bikaner).

—-Petitioner
(3 of 5)
[ CRLR-452/2017]

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

2. Kapil Kumar S/o Shri Balvir Kumawat, R/o Near Khariya Kua,
Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Ward No.10, Singhana, District Jhunjhunu.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Harendra Singh Sinsinwar with
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Prakash Thakuria, PP.
For Non-Petitioner : Mr.Rameshwar Sharma for Ms.Kavita Bhati
No.2
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
31/07/2017

1. Petitioner has preferred these revision petitions aggrieved by

order of conviction passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the

appellate Court whereby petitioner has been convicted for offence

under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Chit Fund Act. In some of the

revision petitions, petitioner has been acquitted for offence under

Section 406 IPC by the appellate Court.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that he is not

arguing the case on the merits. His only prayer is that the

sentences be directed to run concurrently in view of the provisions

contained in Section 427 Cr.P.C.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Sanjay

Sharma Vs. Nirmala Dadhich” S.B.Criminal Revision Petition

No.179/2016 other connected cases decided on
(4 of 5)
[ CRLR-452/2017]

10.4.2017 “Rakesh Vs. State of Rajasthan” S.B.Criminal

Revision Petition No.984 five other connected cases

decided on 26.11.2013. Reliance has also been placed on

“State of Punjab Vs.Madan Lal” 2009 5 SCC 238, wherein the

Apex Court in cheque dishonor cases has upheld judgments of the

High Court directed that the sentences passed in different cheque

dishonor cases to run concurrently.

4. Reliance has also been placed on “Dinesh Kumar vs. State

of Rajasthan and Anr.” Criminal Misc.Petition No.43/2010″

and “Rajendra vs. State of Rajasthan” Criminal

Misc.Petition No.2883/2017, wherein the High Court has

directed that the substantive sentences to the petitioner would run

concurrently, however, Court has directed that the default

sentences would have to be served by the petitioner separately as

Section 427 Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction for concurrent

running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in

default of payment/compensation.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision

petitions.

6. I have considered the contentions and perused the

judgments referred by the counsel for the petitioner. Relying on

the judgment referred to by the counsel, I deem it proper to partly

allow the revision petitions.

7. The revision petitions are partly allowed. While upholding the

orders of conviction passed by the Court below, it is directed that

the substantive sentences passed against the petitioners in the
(5 of 5)
[ CRLR-452/2017]

above cases would run concurrently, however, the petitioners

would have to pay the fine imposed by the Court and on non-

payment of the fine would have to undergo the sentences awarded

in default of payment of fine. The sentence in default of payment

of fine would run consequently. The applications for suspension of

sentence also stand disposed of.

8. The sentence awarded in each case would also run

concurrently.

9. A copy of this order be placed in each file.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

teekam
S.No.1 to 9

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *