Petitioner sought direction to run sentences imposed for default of compensation payment in multiple cheque dishonor prosecutions concurrently. Bench held no legal provision mandates concurrent running of such default sentences and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
mpt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1263 OF 2009
Vidhyagouri Sarkhot Sakrikar ...Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr ... Respondents
Mr.V.P. Patil for the petitioner. Mr.K.V. Saste APP for respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 4th November 2009
P.C.
month in each of the prosecutions. Substantive sentence of one month in all cases was to run concurrently. However, the sentence in default of payment of compensation was not ordered to run concurrently. There is no provision in law which provides that sentences in default of payment of compensation shall also run concurrently. In the circumstances, request cannot be granted.
(D.G. KARNIK,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sentences awarded in default of payment of compensation in separate cheque dishonor cases should be directed to run concurrently.
Whether there is a legal provision requiring concurrent runs of sentences for default of compensation payment.
Whether the High Court can direct concurrent running of compounding default sentences in absence of statutory provision.
Vidhyagouri Sarkhot Sakrikar
The State of Maharashtra
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
