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
