Vinit Kumar Mathur,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction:- i. The sentences passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in Cr. Case No. 665/2012(63/2010) "Rajkumar v. Ravi Kumar" so also Cr. Case No. 671/2012 (92/2010) "Banwari Lal v. Ravi Kumar" as affirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar in Cr. Appeal No. 29/2013 and 28/2013 respectively may kindly be ordered to run concurrently. ii. The humble petitioner may kindly be ordered to be released from custody from the date of completion of his custody period of one year as awarded by learned courts below; iii. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner".
(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 :- "6. In the present case, the accused petitioner, in all the four cases, has been convicted Under Section 138 of the Act, which broadly punishes defaulter in commercial transactions on account of dishonoring of the cheques. The period of sentence in first three cases is three months' S.I. with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 6000/- and Rs. 2000/- respectively and in fourth case being Cr.Case No. 1225/04, he has been sentenced to one year's S.I. and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In first three cases, he has been sentenced on 18.3.2006 by the ACJM (Economic Offences), Jodhpur and in fourth case, he has been sentenced to one year's S.I. vide judgment dt. 14.2.2007 passed by the ACJM, CBI Cases, Jodhpur. The accused petitioner is behind the bars since 22.9.2009. All the four appeals have been dismissed. However, in fourth case, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, wherein he was sentenced to one year's S.I., the term of imprisonment has been reduced to the period already undergone but he has not been released on account of consecutive sentences in all the four cases. As discussed above, as a matter of rule, every sentence is to be run consecutively by virtue of Sub- section (1) of Section 427 CrPC but the Court cannot shut its eyes when the offences relate to the similar transaction alike in the present case regarding dis- honouring of the cheques and can very well exercise its discretion by ordering the sentences to run concurrently. If both the clauses of Section 427 CrPC are read together, then the sentencing Court should be liberal in exercising discretion to award the sentences concurrently, especially when the offences, relating to the same transaction, are committed. 7. In paramjeet Singh's case (supra), both the sentences were Under Section 379 IPC and in Rahul alias Pappu's case (supra), the offences were Under Sections 392, 395 and 365 IPC. They were of course crimes of moral turpitude and the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently but in the present case, the conviction is based on commercial transaction. Though, I would not like to make any comment with regard to any act or omission being made punishable under this Act and the sentences provided for in it but in practice, as is noticed under the garb of this Act, the Courts have been flooded with the litigation under this Act and virtually, they are being made alike recovery authorities for those who are facing trial in a fear of different sentence of imprisonment and fine. I would not like to restrain my words by saying that most of the Courts in this State, particularly at Districts, Division and Capital Head quarters, are overburdened while disposing of these cases fulfilling the aspirations of the private creditors and Banks resulting in less importance to the cases of hard core criminals, who are hazardous to the society and innocent persons languishing in jail during trial. Before summing up, I would like to state that the present case, wherein the accused petitioner has been sentenced in four different cases under the Act, if his sentences are allowed to run consecutively, then the substantive sentence will be twenty one months and in default, further imprisonment of six months. In my view, allowing the sentences to run consecutively as provided for under Section 427(1) CrPC in the present case will be too harsh and tortuous to the accused petitioner resulting in disproportionate order of sentences for the act committed. As it is the foremost task of administration of justice that while awarding sentences consecutively or concurrently, due regard has to be given to the mens rea behind the act or omission as well as the period of sentence, which is necessary for disposal of this misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC so as to secure the ends of justice."
(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.;