Concurrent sentences and release were sought in ten cheque-dishonour cases. The Court refused concurrency for substantive sentences arising from distinct transactions and held that default sentences must run consecutively. All petitions were dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.705/2020 C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1062/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION No.1098/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.26/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.34/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3977/2019 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.62/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.630/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.703/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.758/2020
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.705/2020:
BETWEEN:
SMT.C. BHARATHI W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT No.137, TCP LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA BOMMASANDRA POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. SHALINI R. W/O BHARATHISH N AGED 29 YEARS
2
R/AT 583, NEAR NERALURU BUS STOP NERALURU VILLAGE AND POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 107
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-562 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2 R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26313/2015 ON 04.02.2017 BY XIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1062/2020:
BETWEEN:
SMT.C. BHARATHI W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA YELLAMMADEVI PRASANNA NILAYA ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TLAUK BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
1 . SMT. K.MANJULA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGE: 49 YEARS R/AT MUTHANALLURU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-562 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C); SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.976/2016 ON 21.07.2017 BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1098/2020:
BETWEEN:
SMT.C. BHARATHI W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA VILLAGE BOMMASANDRA POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
4
AND:
1 . SMT. SOWBHAGYA K.P., W/O RAVEENDRA REDDY AGE: MAJOR R/AT 340/1, LAKSHMAMMA RATACHAPPA BUILDING TCP LAYOUT, CHANDAPURA POST OLD CHANDAPURA VILLAGE ANEKAL HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 099
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-562 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C.); SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.2025/2016 ON 21.07.2017 BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.26/2020:
BETWEEN:
SMT.C. BHARATHI W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA BOMMASANDRA POST
5
ANEKAL TLAUK BENGLAURU-560 099
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT.YASHODHAMMA W/O GOPALA REDDY AGE: 59 YEARS R/AT MUTTANALLURU VILLAGE & POST SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-562 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C.); SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1205/2015 ON 21.07.2017 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.34/2020:
BETWEEN:
SMT.C. BHARATHI W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
6
R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA BOMMASANDRA POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGLAURU-560 099
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI M.B.GOPALA REDDY S/O BUDDA REDDY AGE: 69 YEARS R/AT MUTTANALLURU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-562 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C.); SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.05/2016 ON 21.07.2017 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.
7
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3977/2019:
BETWEEN:
SMT.C. BHARATHI W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA BOMMASANDRA POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGLAURU-560 099
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . LOKESH REDDY N., S/O NARASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT No.237, RCR LAYOUT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE & POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 107
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-562 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL
8
PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26312/2015 ON 04.02.2017 BY XIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.26313/2015 ON 04.02.2017 BY XIX ACMM AT BENGALURU IN CC.NO.28193/2015 DATED 11.04.2017 BY XIII ACMM AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.744/2015 ON 21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.976/2016 ON 21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.1815/2016 ON 21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.2025/2016 ON 21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.05/2016 ON 21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.1204/2015 ON 21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.1205/2015 ON 21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.146/2016 ON 21.07.2017 BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT ANEKAL.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.62/2020:
BETWEEN:
SMT.C. BHARATHI W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA BOMMASANDRA POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. SOWBHAGYA K.P., W/O RAVEENDRA REDDY AGE: MAJOR R/AT 340/1, LAKSHMAMMA RATACHAPPA BUILDING TCP LAYOUT, OLD CHANDAPURA ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125
9
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-562 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C.); SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1815/2016 ON 21.07.2017 BY THE PRL. JMFC., AT ANEKAL.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.630/2020:
BETWEEN:
SMT.C. BHARATHI W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT No.137, TCP LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA VILLAGE AND POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE B.M.RAMASWAMY REDDY AGE: 73 YEARS R/AT BANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 102
10
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-562 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2 R1 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.744/2015 ON 21.07.2017 BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.703/2020:
BETWEEN:
SMT.C. BHARATHI W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT No.137, TCP LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA YELLAMMADEVI PRASANNA NILAYA ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TLAUK BENGLAURU-560 099
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. CHANDRA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY AGE: 64 YEARS R/AT MUTTANALLURU VILLAGE & POST
11
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-562 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C.); SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1204/2015 ON 21.07.2017 BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.758/2020:
BETWEEN:
SMT.C. BHARATHI W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT No.137, TCP LAYOUT OLD CHANDAPURA BOMMASANDRA POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. PARVATHI R., W/O GOPALA REDDY T., AGE: MAJOR R/AT RAMADAGARA VILLAGE MUTHANALLURU VILLAGE AND POST,ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 099
12
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-562 100 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2; R-1 IS SERVD)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.28193/2015 ON 11.04.2017 BY XIII ACMM AT BENGALURU.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.02.2021 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
These petitions are filed by the common accused invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to direct the second respondent to release the petitioner/accused, forthwith, from the Central Prison, Bengaluru, in respect of the following cases in which the petitioner herein convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the NI Act’ for short) and undergoing substantive sentence and default sentence. The details are:
13
| Sl.No. | Case No. | Hon'ble Court |
U/Sec | Date of sentence |
Sentence | Fine | I/D Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CC.No. 26312/15 (Crl.P.No.3 977/2019) |
19thACMM, Bengaluru |
138 N.I. Act |
03-04-17 |
- | 16,80,000 | 6 Months |
| 2 | CC.No. 26313/15 (Crl.P.No.7 05/2020) |
19thACMM, Bengaluru |
138 N.I. Act |
03-04-17 | - | 16,90,000 | 6 Months |
| 3 | CC.No. 28193/15 (Crl.P.No.7 58/2020) |
13thACMM, Bengaluru |
138 N.I. Act |
11-04-17 | - | 8,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 4 | CC.No. 744/15 (Crl.P.No.6 30/2020) |
Pril. CJ & JMFC, Anekal |
138 N.I. Act |
21-07-17 | 6 Months | 11,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 5 | CC.No. 1204/15 (Crl.P.No.7 03/2020) |
Pril. CJ & JMFC, Anekal |
138 N.I. Act |
21-07-17 | 6 Months | 36,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 6 | CC.No. 1205/15 (Crl.P.No.2 6/2020) |
Pril. CJ & JMFC, Anekal |
138 N.I. Act |
21-07-17 | 6 Months | 28,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 7 | CC.No. 05/16 (Crl.P.No.3 4/2020) |
Pril. CJ & JMFC, Anekal |
138 N.I. Act |
21-07-17 | 6 Months | 30,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 8 | CC.No. 976/16 (Crl.P.No.1 062/2020) |
Pril. CJ & JMFC, Anekal |
138 N.I. Act |
21-07-17 | 6 Months | 14,40,000 | 6 Months |
| 9 | CC.No. 1815/16 (Crl.P.No.6 2/2020) |
Pril. CJ & JMFC, Anekal |
138 N.I. Act |
21-07-17 | 6 Months | 60,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 10 | CC.No. 2025/16 (Crl.P.No.1 098/2020) |
Pril. CJ & JMFC, Anekal |
138 N.I. Act |
21-07-17 | 6 Months | 70,00,000 | 6 Months |
14
15
different cases but in all cases the offences are similar in nature, except complainants are different parties but accused person is same and more so several cheques are being issued in a single transaction. Thus, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the petitioner in all cases, by imposing sentences are to be run concurrently instead of consecutively. The learned counsel referring to Section 427 of Cr.P.C, vehemently contend that it ought to have been ordered concurrently. The learned counsel in his arguments also vehemently contend that the Trial Court have committed an error in ordering the sentence consecutively.
in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Lal reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2836, wherein , the Apex Court held that, Section 428 - sentences – concurrent running – several cheques issued by accused in single transaction dishonoured – Accused convicted and sentenced separately for each offence - Direction that sentences would run concurrently would be Proper.
16
v. State of Haryana and another reported in (2013) 7
Supreme Court Cases 211, wherein, the Apex Court held that, while awarding sentence concurrent and the same not to be exercised in a mechanical or pedantic manner – Cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by borrower towards repayment of a loan – Each one of loan transactions was a separate and distinct transaction between complainant and borrowing Company – Different cheques subsequently dishonoured on presentation could be said to be arising out of a single loan transaction – Concurrent running of sentence directed limited to substantive sentence only.
17
– Was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 10 months and fine of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation in both cases – Considering duration of custody of accused as evidenced by custody certificate of Deputy Superintendent of Prison to that effect – Substantive sentences of 10 months’ simple imprisonment awarded to accused in both cases directed to run concurrently.
18
appellants to undergo total period of 14 years of imprisonment in respect of all convictions passed against them.
19
upon the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of
Vadiraja v. State by CPI, Brahmavar, Udupi District in Criminal Petition No.6974/2015, D.D. Dated 23.11.2015,
wherein, this Court discussed Section 428 of Cr.P.C. and allowed the petition in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 413 of IPC. The sentences shall run concurrently.
cases and also not disputes the fact that the accused has pleaded guilty. It is also not in dispute that in one case evidence has been recorded. The learned counsel would submit that in the cases on hand in some cases only directed to pay the fine amount and in default of payment of fine she has to suffer the default sentence. In some of the other cases, she was awarded with substantive sentences and directed to pay the fine amount and in default she has to undergo default sentence.
20
No.1/complainant in support of his contentions, he also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Pal ’s case (supra), the very same judgment referred by the petitioner’s counsel also and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.9, 10, 12 and 13, wherein, the Apex Court discussed the Judgment in V.K. Bansal ’s case (supra), and the Apex Court has observed that the Court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that a subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with
21
the previous sentences, the very nature of the power so conferred, predicates that the discretion, would have to be exercised along judicial lines or not in a mechanical or pedantic manner. It was underlined that there is no cut and dried formula for the court to follow, in the exercise of such power and that the justifiability or otherwise of the same, would depend on the nature of the offence or offences committed and the attendant facts and circumstances. It was however postulated, that the legal position favours the exercise of the discretion to the benefit of the prisoners in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction, no matter even if different complaints in relation thereto might have been filed. The caveat as well was that such a concession cannot be extended to transactions which are distinctly different, separate and independent of each other and amongst others where the parties are not same. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the imperative essentiality of a single transaction as the decisive factor to enable the court to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently.
22
23
Apex Court also discussed with regard to the single transaction rule is concerned, where there was a single transaction constituting offences, even if different complaints were filed in relation thereto, sentences can be directed to run concurrently. But, where the cheques are issued in respect of the different transaction if it would constitute a separate and independent transaction and sentence awarded to appellant-accused under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot be directed to run concurrently. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court to paragraph No.18, wherein, the Apex Court has discussed in detail, which has been extracted below:
“18. Applying the principle of single transaction referred to above to the above fact situations we are of the view that each one of the loan transactions/financial arrangements was a separate and distinct transaction between the complainant on the one hand and the borrowing company/appellant on the other. If different cheques which are subsequently dishonoured on presentation, are issued by the borrowing company acting through the appellant, the same could be said to be arising out of a single loan transaction so as to justify a direction for concurrent running of the sentences awarded in relation to dishonour of cheques relevant to each such transaction. That being so, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant in each case relevant to the
24
transactions with each company referred to above ought to run concurrently. We, however, see no reason to extend that concession to transactions in which the borrowing company is different no matter the appellant before us is the promoter/Director of the said other companies also. Similarly, we see no reason to direct running of the sentence concurrently in the case filed by State Bank of Patiala against M/s Sabhyata Plastics and M/s Rahul Plastics which transaction is also independent of any loan or financial assistance between the State Financial Corporation and the borrowing companies. We make it clear that the direction regarding concurrent running of sentence shall be limited to the substantive sentence only. The sentence which the appellant has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be affected by this direction. We do so because the provisions of Section 427 CrPC do not, in our opinion, permit a direction for the concurrent running of the substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation.”
25
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also disputes the very contentions of the respondents’ counsel that the transaction is not a single transaction.
26
The Apex Court also in the recent Judgment in Shyam Pal ’s case (supra), discussed in paragraph No.13, the said benefit cannot be extended to transactions which are distinctly different, separate and independent of each other and amongst others. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that the complainants are different. No doubt, the offences invoked against the petitioner herein under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is also not in dispute that the judgments are passed on different dates, but in 7 cases, the judgments are passed by the very same judge and the judgments are delivered on 21.07.2017. Having perused the details of the cases also the fine amount imposed also different in three cases only default sentence has been awarded in other cases sentence of six months as well as directed to pay the fine amount in default six months sentence also imposed. Hence, it is clear that in the cases on hand, there is a substantive sentence and also a default sentence against the petitioner herein.
referred supra, it is clear that only the substantive sentences can be made as concurrent if it is the transaction is single
27
transaction. If it is the transaction is different transaction, the said concession cannot be given to the petitioner. Hence, I would like to make it clear that the default sentences cannot be made as concurrent and the same should run consecutively in respect of the substantive sentence is concerned, this Court has to look into each case material before the Court whether the transactions are arising out of same transaction or different transaction.
complainant in the complaint made an allegation that the
28
complainant agreed to accommodate hand loan to the accused and lent hand loan of Rs.7 Lakhs to the accused i.e., in the month of second week of May 2015. The cheque was issued and the same was dishonoured.
29
of payment of money, cheques were issued and the same were dishonoured.
30
subscribed two chits. One chit for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and another for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on monthly installment of Rs.12,500/- each. Due to non-payment of chit amount, cheque was issued and the same was also dishonoured.
31
the power so conferred, predicates that the discretion, would have to be exercised along judicial lines or not in a mechanical or pedantic manner.
32
justifiability or otherwise of the same, would depend on the nature of the offence or offences committed and the attendant facts and circumstances. The legal position favours the exercise of the discretion to the benefit of the prisoners in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction, no matter even if different complaints in relation thereto might have been filed. The concession cannot be extended to transactions which are distinctly different, separate and independent of each other and amongst others where the parties are not the same.
33
Cr.P.C. as taking into note of the facts and circumstances of the case for having owed liability to such an extent.
following:
ORDER
The petitions are dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
cp*
2 issues framed by the court
Could substantive sentences for cheque dishonour arising from separate chit and loan transactions be directed to run concurrently under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C?
Could sentences imposed in default of payment of fine or compensation be directed to run concurrently?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab v. Madan LalReferred¶142
AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2836 · Who else cites this
V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and anotherRelied on¶178
V.K. Bansal
Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya and anotherRelied on¶180
(2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 761
Ammavasai and another v. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur and othersReferred¶150
AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3544 · Who else cites this
Rajender s/o Satya Narain v. State of RajasthanReferred¶153
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC (PET) No.2883/2014
Vadiraja v. State by CPI, Brahmavar, Udupi DistrictReferred¶157
Criminal Petition No.6974/2015, D.D. Dated 23.11.2015
3 provisions across 2 enactments
C. BHARATHI
SHALINI R.
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU
K.MANJULA
SOWBHAGYA K.P.
YASHODHAMMA
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
