RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 07/05/2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh in Criminal Case No. 665/2012 (63/2010), the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay Rs. 36,500/- to the plaintiff as compensation. He further submits that vide another order of the same date passed by same Court in Criminal Case No. 671/2012(92/2010), the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay Rs. 2,70,000/- to the plaintiff as compensation. He submits that although in the two cases, the learned Court below has passed the sentence of one year simple imprisonment but the sentences have not been directed to run concurrently. He, therefore, prays that the sentences awarded by learned court below in above cases may kindly be ordered to run concurrently. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon para Nos. 6 and 7 of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Achalchand Sancheti v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 560, which reads as under :-

(3.) In view of the submissions made at the bar and the fact that the sentences were awarded by the Court below vide its order dated 07/05/2013 in criminal case Nos. 665/2012 (63/2010) and 671/2012(92/2010), the same should run concurrently in the spirit of sub section (1) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. The Court cannot remain a silent spectator when the offence is related to the similar transaction. As in the present case, the same pertains to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in such cases, exercise of discretion by ordering the sentences to run concurrently will meet the ends of justice. A close reading of Section 427 of Cr.PC. will reveal that the sentencing Court should be liberal in exercising the discretion to award the sentences concurrently, more particularly when the offences are identical and that too not of heinous nature.