Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Jagdish Singh @ Disha v. State Of Rajasthan

Jagdish Singh @ Disha v. State Of Rajasthan

(High Court Of Rajasthan)

Criminal Revision Nos. 302 and 306 of 2015 | 12-01-2016

Sandeep Mehta, J.These five revisions have been preferred by the petitioner convict Jagdish Singh @ Disha being aggrieved of the judgments passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur in appeals whereby, the appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentences of the petitioner as recorded by the learned ACJM, Srikaranpur in five cases described as under:-

Cr. Revision No.

Trial Courts Judgment dated

Cr. Case No.

Conviction and sentences

Appellate Courts Judgment dated

302/2015

06/07/13

256/2012

Under Section 454 IPC - 3 Years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months additional S.I.

26.6.2014

Under Section 380 IPC - 3 Years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months additional S.I.

303/2015

06/07/13

224/2012

Under Section 454 IPC - 3 Years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months additional S.I.

31.10.2014

Under Section 380 IPC - 3 Years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months additional S.I.

304/2015

06/07/13

225/2012

Under Section 454 IPC - 3 Years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months additional S.I.

07/07/14

Under Section 380 IPC - 3 Years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months additional S.I.

305/2015

17.6.2013

222/2012

Under Section 454 IPC - 3 Years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months additional S.I.

05/11/14

Under Section 380 IPC - 3 Years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months additional S.I.

306/2015

17.6.2013

223/2012

Under Section 454 IPC - 3 Years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months additional S.I.

11/11/14

Under Section 380 IPC - 3 Years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months additional S.I.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the petitioners conviction but prays that in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 1.5.2012, the sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above five cases may be directed to run concurrently. He relies on the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Lal reported in AIR 2009 (Supp) SC 2836 in support of this contention.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and thus, he deserves no leniency on the question of sentence as well.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

5. On going through the record, it is evident that the petitioner was in custody during the course of the trial as well as during the appeal. Thus, he has suffered actual imprisonment of a period in excess of 31/2 years. As per the applicable provisions of Cr.P.C., unless the Court directs to the otherwise, an accused convicted and sentenced in different cases is required to be made to suffer the sentences one after the other. Nonetheless, in view of the law as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal (supra), the appellate court or the Revisional Court if it so considers appropriate, can direct that the sentences awarded to an accused in similar kind of cases be made to run concurrently. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 31/2 years in the above five cases involving identical offences, the circumstances are appropriate for passing such a direction in the case of the petitioner as well.

6. Thus, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court in the above five cases, it is hereby ordered that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above five cases shall run concurrently.

7. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court and the concerned jail forthwith.

8. Record be sent back forthwith.

9. Copy of this order be placed in each file.

Advocate List
  • For Petitioner : M.K. Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant; Pankaj Awasthi, Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Eq Citations
  • LQ/RajHC/2016/111
Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 386 and 389 — Concurrence of sentences — Five cases involving identical offences — Petitioner convicted and sentenced in all five cases — Petitioner in custody for last 31/2 years — Held, circumstances are appropriate for passing such a direction in case of petitioner as well — Hence, sentences awarded to petitioner in all five cases shall run concurrently