Single-bench order allowing a criminal revision application. The court held that sentences for cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from one transaction should run concurrently, not consecutively. Compensation deposit accepted.
Application allowed; sentences directed to run concurrently; compensation deposit accepted.
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.
2024:BHC-AS:1540
Urmila Ingale 5-REVN-165-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2019
Rajiv Virendra Bhatia ..Applicant VS. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
Mr. Karan L. Jain, for the applicant. Ms. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State. HC-Mr. Ravindra Pawar, Khar police station present.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 12, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1/5
Urmila Ingale 5-REVN-165-19.doc
420 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 18 months respectively. Considering the fact that the applicant is a practicing advocate and having regard to the nature of the accusations, the trial Court directed the sentences to run consecutively. The applicant was ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs payable to the first informant and in default, to suffer imprisonment of 6 months. The period of 10 months and 28 days was given as set off. The appeal was filed before the Appellate Court.
“10. The abovementioned provision contains the legal provisions about the quantum of the punishment. Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the present case are distinct. The ingredients of dishonestly inducing the informant and her uncle and thereby making them to part with the said amounts are not common ingredients with the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, law permits separate punishments for both these offences. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has the ingredients of misusing the funds for own purpose by committing criminal breach of trust. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Advocate that since it is a case of single transaction, the sentence should be concurrent, cannot be accepted.
2/5
Urmila Ingale 5-REVN-165-19.doc
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The age of the accused and period of incarceration are also not the sole criteria for determining the quantum of sentence. By giving the cheques to the informant and her uncle, the offences were not mitigated. Those cheques were dishonoured. There were no mitigating circumstance. Therefore, in absence of any mitigating circumstances, I find that the quantum of sentence is neither excessive nor disproportionate. No fine was imposed. The direction was to pay the compensation. Therefore, though the accused sought reduction of fine, since there is no fine at all, there is no question of reduction of the fine. Even the quantum of compensation also needs no interference. Hence, I answer points No.1 and 2 in the negative. In result, the appellant is not entitled for any relief. The Appeal is liable to be dismissed.”
1 2013 AIR (SC) 3447
3/5
Urmila Ingale 5-REVN-165-19.doc
the sentence to run consecutively. It is submitted that the impugned order should not be interfered with.
4/5
Urmila Ingale 5-REVN-165-19.doc
accused that the property upon being sold, the profits could be shared. It needs to be considered that the applicant had pleaded guilty before the trial Court. In my opinion, the Appellate Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there are 2 different transactions, one relating to section 406 and the other relating to section 420 of IPC having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case. The Courts below committed an error directing the above sentences shall run consecutively instead of concurrently. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the compensation amount of Rs. 2 lakhs has been deposited in this Court which he has no objection to the first informant withdrawing the said amount. The statement is accepted as an undertaking to this Court. I am informed by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has already served the sentence if the same is to run concurrently. In this view of the matter, the application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
5/5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was correct in directing that sentences for offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC arising from a single transaction run consecutively instead of concurrently.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded requires interference.
Whether the applicant has served the sentence if it were to run concurrently.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana & OrsRelied on¶21
V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2013 AIR (SC) 3447) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajiv Virendra Bhatia
The State of Maharashtra
Ravindra Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
