2017 (4) TMI 1016 - HC - Indian Laws

Sentences awarded under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act - release from custody seeked - dispute was primarily between the two same parties - Held that - Judgment of hon ble Supreme Court in Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr. 2017 (4) TMI 955 - SUPREME COURT is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The facts pleaded and proved do unassailably demonstrate that the loans advanced had been in the course of a series of transactions between the same parties on same terms and conditions. There is, thus, an overwhelming identicalness in the features of the three cases permitting the three transactions though undertaken at different points of time, to be deemed as a singular transaction or two segments of one transaction. The petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2016. He has undergone around fourteen months incarceration besides emission. Considering the duration of the appellant s custody, the nature of offence involved and the nature of transactions between the parties thereto, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the discretion contained under Section The substantive sentence of SI for six months each awarded to the petitioner in the three complaint cases referred to hereinabove would run concurrently. Needless to say, the petitioner would have to serve the default sentences, if the fine, as imposed, has not been paid by him. The petition is allowed in the above terms. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential reliefs with regard to his release from custody as available in law based on this determination.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking concurrent running of sentences under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act in three complaint cases.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. requesting that the sentences imposed on him in three different complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be ordered to run concurrently. Despite being served, Respondent No.2 did not contest the petition.
2. The petitioner was convicted in three complaint cases and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and pay fines. Appeals challenging the conviction and sentence were dismissed. The petitioner had served the substantive sentences in two cases, with the default sentence pending in one case.
3. The petitioner had already served a significant portion of the sentence in the third case as per the Nominal Roll. The court noted the details of the rental agreement, non-payment of rent by the petitioner, and subsequent dishonored cheques leading to the complaints.
4. The complaints arose from transactions between the same parties involving rent payments made by the complainant on the petitioner's behalf, which were later dishonored. The court found overwhelming identicalness in the features of the three cases, treating them as part of a singular transaction.
5. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court concluded that the transactions between the parties constituted a series of transactions on the same terms and conditions. Considering the duration of the petitioner's custody, the nature of the offense, and the transactions involved, the court held that the sentences should run concurrently.
6. The court ordered that the substantive sentences in all three complaint cases should run concurrently, with the petitioner required to serve the default sentences if fines were unpaid. The petitioner was entitled to consequential reliefs for his release from custody based on this determination.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment comprehensively, highlighting the key legal aspects and decisions made by the court.