The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that multiple substantive sentences for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be ordered to run concurrently, provided they arise from distinct but similar transactions. However, the Court emphatically held that sentences imposed in default of payment of fine or compensation must continue to run consecutively, preserving the deterrent intent of the law.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mukesh S/o Gautamlal, was convicted in five separate criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, each involving the dishonour of a cheque issued to a different complainant. The trial courts imposed identical sentences of six months’ simple imprisonment in each case, with additional fines and default sentences for non-payment. The petitioner, currently lodged in District Jail, Dungarpur, sought relief under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to have all substantive sentences run concurrently.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was convicted in five distinct cases:
- Cr. Regular Case No. 11/2020 (Complainant: Kan Singh) - Judgment dated 10.01.2024
- Cr. Regular Case No. 113/2020 (Complainant: Kalyan Singh) - Judgment dated 10.01.2024
- Cr. Regular Case No. 230/2021 (Complainant: Vijaylal) - Judgment dated 10.01.2024
- Cr. Regular Case No. 409/2021 (Complainant: Daya Lal) - Judgment dated 06.01.2024
- Cr. Regular Case No. 321/2021 (Complainant: Vikram) - Judgment dated 06.01.2024
- In each case, the trial court awarded six months’ simple imprisonment
- Each judgment also imposed a fine and a default sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment
- The petitioner has not paid any of the fines or compensation ordered
- All five convictions were affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangwara, on 21.11.2025
Procedural History
- 10.01.2024: Conviction and sentencing in three cases (Nos. 11/2020, 113/2020, 230/2021)
- 06.01.2024: Conviction and sentencing in two cases (Nos. 409/2021, 321/2021)
- 21.11.2025: Additional Sessions Judge affirmed all five convictions
- 01.07.2026: Petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4582/2026 before the Rajasthan High Court seeking concurrent running of substantive sentences
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Concurrent running of the five six-month substantive sentences of imprisonment
- Release from custody if the concurrent sentence has already been served
- Exclusion of default sentences for non-payment of fine or compensation from the concurrent order
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the concurrent running of substantive sentences imposed in multiple cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and whether such concurrency extends to sentences awarded in default of payment of fine or compensation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on the precedent in Rajendra Kabra v. State of Rajasthan (Crl. Misc. Petn. No. 2883/2014), wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that where multiple convictions arise from similar offences under Section 138 NI Act, the substantive sentences may be ordered to run concurrently to avoid excessive punishment. It was argued that the petitioner’s conduct, though repeated, was not maliciously orchestrated and that the cumulative effect of five consecutive six-month terms would be disproportionate.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor did not oppose the prayer for concurrent substantive sentences, acknowledging the binding precedent. However, he emphasized that Section 427 CrPC explicitly excludes default sentences from the scope of concurrency, and that allowing concurrency in default sentences would undermine the statutory intent behind penalizing non-payment of fines or compensation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the ratio in Rajendra Kabra v. State of Rajasthan and reaffirmed its applicability to the present case. It noted that all five convictions arose from distinct transactions involving different complainants, yet were of the same nature - dishonour of cheques under Section 138 NI Act. The Court observed that the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Madan Lal, V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, and Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya had consistently held that while substantive sentences for similar offences may be directed to run concurrently, default sentences for non-payment of fine or compensation must be served consecutively.
"The direction for concurrent running of sentences would be limited only to the substantive sentences alone. The sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be affected by such an order."
The Court emphasized that Section 427 CrPC permits concurrency only for substantive imprisonment terms and explicitly carves out default sentences from its ambit. The rationale, as articulated in prior judgments, is that default sentences serve a distinct punitive and deterrent function - to compel compliance with monetary orders. Allowing them to run concurrently would render the fine imposition mechanism ineffective.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had not discharged any of the fines or compensation obligations. Therefore, the default sentences remain enforceable and must be served consecutively unless and until payment is made.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in part. The Court ordered that the five substantive sentences of six months’ simple imprisonment in Cr. Regular Cases Nos. 11/2020, 113/2020, 230/2021, 409/2021, and 321/2021 shall run concurrently. The petitioner shall be deemed to have served a total of six months’ imprisonment for all convictions. However, the default sentences imposed for non-payment of fines or compensation in each case shall continue to run consecutively. If the petitioner pays the outstanding fines or compensation, he shall not be required to undergo the default sentences. The Court directed the jail authorities to compute the concurrent sentence and release the petitioner upon completion of six months’ substantive imprisonment, subject to the continued enforceability of default sentences unless payment is made.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Substantive Sentences in NI Act Cases May Run Concurrently
- Practitioners may now routinely pray for concurrent sentences in cases involving multiple Section 138 convictions arising from similar, non-violent financial defaults
- Courts are likely to grant such relief where the offences are factually distinct but legally identical, and the cumulative punishment appears disproportionate
- This applies even if convictions were delivered by different trial courts
Default Sentences Are Non-Negotiable
-
Any order for concurrency under Section 427 CrPC must explicitly exclude default sentences for non-payment of fine or compensation
-
Lawyers must advise clients to clear outstanding fines promptly to avoid extended incarceration
-
Jail authorities must maintain separate records for substantive and default sentences - they cannot be merged
-
If a client has multiple NI Act convictions, calculate the total substantive sentence as the longest single term, not the sum
-
Always file a separate application for waiver of default sentence upon payment of fine - do not assume automatic relief
