2017 (2) TMI 1521 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - prayer is that the sentences awarded to him in 14 different cases for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act details of which are being provided in later part of this order may be ordered to run concurrently - whether the High Court exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoke Section 427 Cr.P.C. and order that sentences awarded in two different cases shall run concurrently? - HELD THAT - In all the 14 complaints filed against the petitioner he has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act and different sentences have been awarded. The maximum sentence awarded to the petitioner is 2 years simple imprisonment along with fine. As per sub-section (1) of section 427 CrPC when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment such imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence - the intention of legislature is that even the life convicts have been held entitled to benefit of subsequent sentence being run concurrently be it life term or of any lesser term then the different yardstick cannot be applied for those persons who have been awarded sentence of lesser duration than life unless there are compelling reasons to do so. There are no compelling reason to order that all the sentences awarded to the petitioner in all 14 cases would run consecutively. It would not be inconsistent with the administration of criminal justice if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of discretion contained in section 427 of the Code to meet the ends of justice - it is ordered that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above referred 14 cases would run concurrently however the petitioner will have to serve default sentences as the provisions of section 427 of the CrPC do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Invocation of Section 427 CrPC for concurrent running of sentences.
2. Consideration of discretion under Section 427 CrPC.
3. Application of relevant case laws in determining concurrent sentences.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of invoking Section 427 CrPC to order concurrent running of sentences awarded in different cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Division Bench in a previous case emphasized the importance of exercising discretion under this provision to prevent miscarriage of justice and rectify errors in sentencing. The Court highlighted that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be utilized to ensure fair treatment and prevent abuse of court processes.

2. The Court considered the petitioner's argument for concurrent sentences due to the similar nature of all cases, the lengthy cumulative sentence, and the petitioner's duration of imprisonment. Referring to relevant Supreme Court judgments, the Court acknowledged the need to balance justice with the application of Section 427 CrPC. It was concluded that the petitioner should benefit from concurrent running of substantive sentences but not for sentences imposed in default of fine payment.

3. In analyzing the case, the Court referred to the provisions of Section 427 CrPC, which dictate the commencement of subsequent sentences for individuals already undergoing imprisonment. The Court cited specific clauses of the section and highlighted that even life convicts are entitled to the benefit of concurrent sentences for subsequent convictions. The judgment emphasized the need for consistency in applying this provision and considered the petitioner's circumstances, the sentences imposed, and the period of detention in granting the benefit of concurrent running of substantive sentences.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition for concurrent running of substantive sentences in the 14 cases under section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, the Court clarified that default sentences for non-payment of fines would run consecutively. The decision aimed to balance justice and align with the principles outlined in relevant Supreme Court judgments, ensuring fairness in the administration of criminal justice while upholding the provisions of Section 427 CrPC.