2018 (1) TMI 495 - HC - Indian Laws

Bounced cheques - loan agreement - whether the sentence awarded should run concurrently or not? - Held that - If different cheques issued by the petitioner to the respondent no.2, which were subsequently dishonoured on presentation, arose out of a single loan transaction, then it could have been justified to direct for concurrent running of the sentences in relation to dishonour of cheques relevant to each such transactions - both the loan agreements executed between the parties are not arising out of the single transaction. Hence, this court is of the view that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court in the present case is not to run concurrently but consecutively - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside judgments passed by lower courts in a case under Section 138 of NI Act.
2. Adjudication on whether the sentences awarded by the Trial Court should run concurrently or consecutively based on the nature of the transactions.

Issue 1: Revision Petition under Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner filed a revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgments passed by the District & Session Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner was found guilty for dishonoring post-dated cheques issued for a loan amount and was sentenced to imprisonment and compensation by the Trial Court. The petitioner contended that the sentences should run concurrently due to the transactions being between the same parties.

Issue 2: Sentences to Run Concurrently or Consecutively:
The main issue in this case was whether the sentences awarded by the Trial Court should run concurrently or consecutively based on the nature of the transactions. The petitioner argued for concurrent sentences as the loan transactions were between the same parties, even though two separate loan agreements were involved. The prosecution opposed this, stating that the transactions were distinct and should not run concurrently. The court referred to legal precedents to determine that the discretion to order concurrent sentences depends on the nature of the offenses and the factual circumstances.

The court analyzed the loan agreements and dishonored cheques, noting that each loan agreement was a separate transaction between the parties, resulting in different cheques being dishonored on different dates. It was observed that the transactions were not arising out of a single transaction, leading to the conclusion that the sentences should run consecutively. The court emphasized that the concession for concurrent sentences cannot be extended to transactions that are distinctly different and independent of each other. Consequently, the court held that the sentences awarded by the Trial Court in this case should run consecutively based on the facts and circumstances presented.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition, upholding the Trial Court's decision that the sentences should run consecutively due to the distinct nature of the transactions involved.