9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 1066 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - On behalf of respondent no. 2, it is argued that the petitioner does not deserve judicial discretion in her favour because despite Court's order in all the three cases, she did neither pay the amount of fine, nor did she pay compensation to the respondent no. 2, who is an old person of 65 years of age - HELD THAT - Sentencing is an area which troubles the Court more than the trial itself. The balance is always made between the conflicting interests. It is this area in which there is large discretion given to the Judges. The purpose of sentencing need not be reiterated. The person who has incurred loss due to offence is also required to be compensated and it is perhaps because of this reason, that in all the three cases, the petitioner was required to pay compensation to respondent no. 2, but, she did not pay even a part of it. This is not a small amount. In some cases, the amount of compensation is 6,70,000/-. This Court is of the view that since the petitioner has not paid even a part of the compensation, as directed by the Court, she does not deserve any judicial discretion for permitting the sentences imposed upon her to run concurrently and accordingly, this Court is of the view that the learned Court below on different premises, but, rightly rejected the application filed under Section 427 of the Code - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the judgments and orders passed in Criminal Revision Nos. 44, 43, and 45 of 2020. 2. Rejection of applications under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. Requests for sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Judgments and Orders in Criminal Revision Nos. 44, 43, and 45 of 2020: The petitions challenge the judgments and orders dated 26.06.2020 passed by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, which confirmed the orders dated 15.06.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. These orders were related to Criminal Case Nos. 450, 451, and 449 of 2013, where applications filed under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were rejected. 2. Rejection of Applications under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The applications under Section 427 of the Code sought to have the sentences in all three cases run concurrently. The trial court rejected these applications, and the rejection was upheld by the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital. 3. Convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: In all three cases, the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonoring cheques issued to repay loans taken in August 2010. The petitioner was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and fines of ?60,000/-, ?1,15,000/-, and ?6,75,000/- respectively, along with compensation amounts to the respondent. The convictions and sentences were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Requests for Sentences to Run Concurrently Instead of Consecutively: The petitioner argued that the loans taken in August 2010 constituted a single transaction and thus the sentences should run concurrently. Reliance was placed on the principles laid down in cases such as Mohd. Akhtar Hussain, State of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal, V.K. Bansal, and Benson Vs. State of Kerala. The court examined the scope of Section 427 of the Code, which allows for judicial discretion to direct sentences to run concurrently if the offenses arise from the same transaction. Legal Precedents and Judicial Discretion: The court referred to several precedents, including: - Mohd. Akhtar Hussain: Emphasized the single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. - Madan Lal: Upheld the principle that concurrent sentences may be directed if offenses arise from the same transaction. - V.K. Bansal: Supported the exercise of judicial discretion for concurrent sentences in cases involving dishonor of cheques related to a single transaction. Arguments Against Concurrent Sentences: The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner had a long criminal history and had not paid any compensation to the respondent, who was 65 years old. The court also considered the principles laid down in cases such as State Vs. K.V. Rajendran, M.R. Kudva, Neera Yadav Vs. CBI, and Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad, which discussed the scope of Section 427 and the importance of compensating victims. Court's Conclusion: The court concluded that separate proceedings under Section 482 of the Code for invoking Section 427 are maintainable, as supported by the judgments in Madan Lal and V.K. Bansal. However, considering the petitioner's failure to pay compensation and the need to balance conflicting interests in sentencing, the court decided that the petitioner did not deserve judicial discretion for concurrent sentences. Thus, the court upheld the rejection of the applications under Section 427 and dismissed all three petitions. Final Judgment: All three petitions were dismissed.
|
