ACHALCHAND SANCHETI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner Achalchand Sancheti, who has been convicted and sentenced on different dated in different four cases registered against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" by the learned ACJM (Economic Offences), Jodhpur has prayed that the sentences awarded to him in all the four cases may be ordered to run concurrently, the details of which are as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1978_RAJLW3_2010Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) Learned counsel while relying upon the decision of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention) Ahmedabad reported in 1988 Cr.L.R. (SC) 769 and decisions of this Court in Paramjeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 591 and Rahul alias Pappu vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2009(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 912, has submitted that though the language of Section 427(1) CrPC is to award consecutive sentence but it is subject to exception of running the sentences concurrently on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, if the Court so directs. According to the learned counsel, under sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C, even a life convict undergoing the sentence of imprisonment, is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, his subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. According to him, if this rule of concurrent sentences is applicable to a hard core criminal, then why it should not be applied to a case, where the offences are of similar nature relating to the same transaction.

(3.) Having heard the arguments of Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor & also upon going through the above citations in the light of the impugned judgments of the learned courts below, it will be appropriate to quote Section 427 CrPC, which reads as under: