w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Madhav Kumaril Bhagwat v/s State of Maharashtra & Another


    Decided On, 25 August 2011

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur


    For the Applicant: ------ For the Respondent: T.A. Mirza, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Judgment Text

Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.)

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. This communication has been received from

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the petitioner, who is serving sentence in Jail. It appears from communication that the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in Criminal Case No.4684/2005 and 4685/2005, by the 4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr. Dn. and Special Judicial Magistrate First Class (N.I. Act). The petitioner in both the trials was convicted for simple imprisonment for three months respectively. According to the petitioner, after he was sent to Jail for undergoing sentences and after completion of three months of actual imprisonment, the petitioner ought to have been released as according to the petitioner, he has already undergone imprisonment for three months and the sentences in both the trials should be held to be a concurrent sentences and not consecutive.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to the judgment 2007 Cril.L.J. 763, M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has held that if the Appellate Court does not pass any order in respect of making the consecutive sentences and concurrent, the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be do so.

3. The petitioner has been convicted in two different cases for two separate offences. In the judgment of the trial Court, it appears that the sentences have not been directed to run concurrently with each other. We are not aware that if he had filed an appeal and the aforesaid sentences had been confirmed. In that light of the matter, this Court cannot in exercise of writ jurisdiction direct that the sentences should run concurrently and not consecutively and that would amount to review of the judgment of the trial Court deciding the criminal cases. Even otherwise, such a power cannot be exercised by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that light of the matter, there is no merit in the present petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged.

Copy of this order be communicated to the petitioner, who is undergoing imprisonment in Jail

Already A Member?