CRLMP/4050/2026 of MANOJ KIRAD S/O LADDURAM KIRAD Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 12 August 2026

Order

12/08/2026

1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS with a prayer that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in two cases (Annexure-1 and 2 of the misc. petition) may be ordered to run concurrently.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner stands convicted and sentenced in two cases, the details whereof are produced hereinbelow:- S. No Case Detail Date of Decision Sentence

1. Cr. Case No.524/2

Judgment

dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Tonk for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to one year’s Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.4,35,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months’ Simple Imprisonment.

[2026:RJ-JP:31855] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-4050/2026]

2. Cr. Case No.1563/

Judgment

dated 10.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tonk Convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to one year and six months’ Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s Simple Imprisonment.

3. Learned counsel submits that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in the aforesaid two cases are not running concurrently, and in absence of any specific order, regarding sentence to run concurrently, the petitioner has to serve the sentence of first case and on completion of thereof, the sentence of second case. Learned counsel has submitted the jail authority certificates of the petitioner issued by the Superintendent, District Jail, Tonk dated 09.07.2026, as per which, the petitioner has already served the total sentence passed in Criminal Case No.1563/2021 and in Criminal Case No.524/2021, the petitioner has served more than half of sentence. Custody certificates are taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.563/2017 and submits that in the said case, the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Punjab v. Madan Lal, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2836, V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2013 Cr.L.J. 3986, Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya & Anr., AIR 2016 SC 5021 and in Ammavasai & Anr. v. Inspector of Police & Ors., AIR

(3 of 6) [CRLMP-4050/2026] 2000 SC 3544, have been discussed and it has been held as under: "As per sub-section (1) of Section 427 CrPC when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been that the subsequent sentence previously sentenced, unless the court direct shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: As per second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 427 CrPC where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section122 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. Sub-section (2) of section 427 CrPC provides that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. From the above, it can be gathered that the

intention of legislature is that even the life

convicts

have been held entitled to benefit of

subsequent

sentence, being run concurrently,

be it life term or of

any lesser term then the

different yardstick cannot be

applied for those

persons, who have been awarded

sentence or

lesser duration than life unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In this case, I do not see any compelling reason to order that all the sentences awarded to the petitioner in all 14 cases would run consecutively."

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the factual aspects of the matter. However, he has opposed the prayer to invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. in the matter.

5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

(4 of 6) [CRLMP-4050/2026]

6. Section 427 Cr.P.C. provides for sentence on offender who has already been sentenced for another offence. The same is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready-reference:- "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.

(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence."

7. As per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, in normal course a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, if sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, but the court in its discretion based on settled principles may direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. While exercising such discretion, the trial court, appellate court or revisional court, as the case may be, keep in

(5 of 6) [CRLMP-4050/2026] mind several factors. In the instant case, the learned trial courts did not exercise its discretion with respect to concurrency of sentences and thus, there is absolutely non-consideration of the issue about invoking this discretion which is causing great injustice.

8. The first conviction of the accused petitioner was recorded for offences under Section 138 of NI Act in the year 2024. Thereafter, he was convicted and sentenced in another case in the year 2024 itself and the appeal filed by the petitioner in one of the case is still pending and in one of the cases, the petitioner has already served the total sentence. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner and in view of the observation made in the above-referred case, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be inconsistent in the administration of justice, if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of discretion contained in Section 427 Cr.P.C. with a view to meet the ends of justice.

9. The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. It is directed that the sentence passed in the aforesaid criminal cases (Annexure-1 and

2) would run concurrently.

10. However, the petitioner will have to serve default sentences, as the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. The sentences, which the petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be effected by this direction and if the petitioner has not paid the fine/compensation as directed by the trial court, the said sentence

(6 of 6) [CRLMP-4050/2026] would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo default sentences. If petitioner has undergone the sentence and sentence in lieu of default of fine, he be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case.

11. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 61/MADAN MEENA