2017 (4) TMI 955 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 - Held that - As the duration of the appellant s custody, as is evidenced by the certificate to that effect, that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the discretion contained in Section 427 of the Code. In arriving at this conclusion we have, as required, reflected on the nature of the transactions between the parties thereto, the offences involved, the sentences awarded and the period of detention of the appellant as on date. It is thus ordered that the substantive sentences of 10 months simple imprisonment awarded to the appellant in the two complaint cases referred to hereinabove would run concurrently. Needless to say, the appellant would have to serve the default sentences, if the fine by way of compensation, as imposed, has not been paid by him. The appeals are thus allowed to this extent. The appellant would be entitled to all consequential reliefs with regard to his release from custody as available in law based on this determination.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988
2. Reduction of default sentence by the High Court
3. Applicability of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Issue 1: Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988
The judgment in question pertains to the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988. The appellant was found guilty of issuing two cheques amounting to &8377; 5 lacs each, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complaints filed by the respondent stemmed from loans advanced to the appellant in a series of transactions, leading to the conviction under Section 138. The Trial Court, District and Sessions Judge, and High Court all upheld the conviction, resulting in a sentence of 10 months simple imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 6,50,000 as compensation.

Issue 2: Reduction of default sentence by the High Court
The High Court, while maintaining the substantive sentence, reduced the default sentence from six months to three months for the appellant. The appellant had already served the substantive sentence and the reduced default sentence. The High Court's decision to decline the appellant's plea for release after serving the sentence was challenged in the present appeals. The appellant argued that due to the successive nature of the transactions and being the sole breadwinner of the family, running the sentences consecutively would result in grave injustice.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The judgment extensively analyzed the applicability of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the orientation of sentences awarded to an offender following successive convictions. The court referred to previous cases to emphasize that the discretion to run subsequent sentences concurrently with previous ones should be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the offenses and circumstances. The court concluded that in the present case, the sentences of 10 months simple imprisonment in both complaint cases should run concurrently, while the default sentences would be served if the fine was not paid.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the substantive sentences would run concurrently for the appellant. The appellant was directed to serve the default sentences if the compensation fine had not been paid. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, reduction of default sentences, and the application of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in determining the cumulative duration of sentences.