IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.572 of 2025 Reserved on : 21.07.2025 Decided on : 31.07.2025 Ghanshyam …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate. For the respondent No. 1 : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate Genral with Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent No. 2 : None. Virender Singh, Judge. Petitioner-Ghanshyam has filed the present petition, under Section 528 read with Section 467 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS, 2023’), for a direction to run the sentences concurrently in cases registered as case No. 243 of 2022, 244 of 2022 and 245 of 2022, titled as ‘Khem Singh Vs Ghanshyam’ decided by the Court of learned 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”). 2. As per the petitioner, he has been convicted in these three cases, initiated under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the details of the sentences, imposed upon him, are as under:- Sr. No. Date of sentence Case No. Court Name Imprisonment In default 1. 15.06.2024 Regd. No. 244 of 2022 (Cr.M.A.) No. 22 of 2024) Ld. JMFC Chachiot at Gohar (Camp at Thunag) District Mandi, H.P. S.I. for 06 months and to pay compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- 15 Days 2. 15.06.2024 Regd. No. 245 of 2022 (Cr.M.A.) No. 21 of 2024) Ld. JMFC Chachiot at Gohar (Camp at Thunag) District Mandi, H.P. S.I. for 06 months and to pay compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- 15 Days 3. 15.06.2024 Regd. No. 243 of 2022 (Cr.M.A.) No. 23 of 2024) Ld. JMFC Chachiot at Gohar (Camp at Thunag) District Mandi, H.P. S.I. for 03 months and to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- 15 Days 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the above cases have arisen out of a transaction occurring 3 between the same time frame and the trial Court awarded the sentence of imprisonment and fine as referred above. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the sentence imposed in each of the three cases is substantive sentence of imprisonment and the trial Court has directed the same to run consecutively, resulting in total imprisonment of 15 months and in default of the same, the petitioner has to further undergo imprisonment for 45 days. In this regard the petitioner has relied upon custody certificate issued by the jail authorities. 5. The relief, as claimed in the petition, has been sought on the ground that he is the sole bread earner of his family, which is consisting of aged mother, wife and two children. 6. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, by directing that the sentences awarded, in the three cases, as referred to above, shall run concurrently. 7. Perusal of the documents annexed with the petition shows that the learned trial Court has decided the above titled three cases on 15.06.2024 and in each case, the applicant has been convicted for the offence under 4 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and in the case bearing No. 244 of 2022 and 245 of 2022, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 7 lakh each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, whereas, in case No. 243 of 2022, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case titled as “M/s Meters and Instrument Private Ltd. Vs Kanchan Mehta, 2017 Lawsuits (SC) 996”, has held that Section 138 is primarily of civil nature. 9. As per the custody certificate, the applicant has undergone sentence of seven months and 12 days, as on 29.04.2025. Meaning thereby, the substantive sentence in one case has already been over and he is presently undergoing sentence in the second case. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in V.K. Bansal versus State of Haryana & Another, (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211, has held that the powers under Section 427(1) 5 Cr.PC, should be exercised judiciously and not mechanically. Relevant paragraph 16 is reproduced, as under:- “16. In conclusion, we may say that the legal position favours exercise of discretion to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction no matter different complaints in relation thereto may have been filed as is the position in cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by the borrower towards repayment of a loan to the creditor.” 11. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar versus State of Punjab, (2017) 5 Supreme Court Case 53, has elaborately discussed the provisions of Section 427 Cr.PC. Relevant paragraphs 4 to 7 are reproduced, as under:- “4. The power conferred on the Court under Section 427 Cr.P.C. to order concurrent sentence is discretionary. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “S.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 6 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.” 5. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 427, if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced. Only in appropriate cases, considering the facts of the case, the court can make the sentence run concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. The investiture of such discretion, presupposes that such discretion be exercised by the Court on sound judicial principles and not in a mechanical manner. Whether or not the discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to run concurrently would depend upon the nature of the offence/offences and the facts and circumstances of each case. 6. In V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 211, it was held by this Court as under: “It is manifest from Section 427 (1) that the Court has the power and the discretion to issue a direction but in the very nature of the 7 power so conferred upon the Court the discretionary power shall have to be exercised along the judicial lines and not in a mechanical, wooden or pedantic manner. It is difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. There is no cut and dried formula for the Court to follow in the matter of issue or refusal of a direction within the contemplation of Section 427(1). Whether or not a direction ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed, and the fact situation in which the question of concurrent running of the sentences arises.” This Court then went on to club various crimes in respect of which sentences were imposed upon the appellant therein in three groups. 7. After referring to V.K. Bansal’s case, in Benson v. State of Kerala (2016) 10 SCC 307: 2016 (9) SCALE 670, this Court directed the substantive sentences imposed on the appellant Benson to run concurrently. The appellant therein was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 379 and Section 414 read with Section 34 IPC in at least eleven cases. By a separate judgment, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in each of the aforesaid cases and total length of sentences in aggregate was around nineteen years.” 12. Considering the nature of the cases in which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced, which are primarily civil in nature, the relief, as claimed in the petition, is liable to be granted to the petitioner. As such, the substantive sentence, in cases, i.e. case No. 243, 244 8 and 245 of 2022 titled as ‘Khem Singh Vs Ghanshyam’, decided by learned trial Court is ordered to be run concurrently. 13. It is further clarified that in view of the decision of Hon’ble apex Court in Vicky @ Vikas versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2020 (3) SCALE 40, the benefit of the ‘concurrent running of sentences’ is granted to the petitioner, with regard to the substantive sentence and not the sentence, which has been inflicted, upon him, in default of payment of fine. 14. With these observations, the petition stands allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Virender Singh ) July 31, 2025 Judge (Pramod)