2021 (5) TMI 55 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - main grounds urged in the petition is that the petitioner inspite of serving the sentence for a period of one year in view of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been detained in the jail, which is erroneous, arbitrary and unconstitutional - HELD THAT - The Apex Court in V.K.Bansal s case 2013 (8) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT discussed with regard to Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. which stipulates the discretionary power of the Court to direct sentence to run concurrently and also discussed with regard to when it should be exercised. It is further held that no straight jacket approach can be laid down. However, only substantive sentence can be directed to run concurrently and sentence awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation cannot be directed to run concurrently. In the present case, the petitioner has not paid the amount and he has committed a default of payment of fine/compensation amount, the Apex Court held that Section 427 of Cr.P.C. do not permit to issue a direction for the concurrent running of the substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation and hence, this Court is of the view that the sentences passed by this Court cannot be directed to run as concurrently as the petitioner has been awarded default sentence and hence, there are no error committed by the learned Magistrate or jail authorities in not considering the request of the petitioner herein as contended in the petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for release of petitioner.
2. Determination of concurrent or consecutive running of sentences for default in payment of fine/compensation.
3. Application of Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. for directing concurrent sentences.
4. Compliance with the judgment in V.K.Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another (2013) 7 SCC 211.
5. Consideration of separate transactions and complainants in the case.
6. Analysis of the jail authorities' role in releasing the petitioner.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for release of petitioner

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking release from detention after serving a one-year sentence as per the court's order. The petitioner argued that the jail authorities failed to release him despite completing the sentence, leading to the current petition.

Issue 2: Determination of concurrent or consecutive running of sentences for default in payment of fine/compensation

The court reviewed the case where the petitioner was sentenced to one year in default of payment of fine/compensation. The petitioner contended that the sentences should run concurrently, highlighting the absence of specific directions in earlier judgments for consecutive sentences.

Issue 3: Application of Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. for directing concurrent sentences

The petitioner's counsel invoked Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. and cited the V.K.Bansal judgment, arguing for concurrent sentences. However, the respondents argued against concurrent sentences, emphasizing the distinct nature of the transactions and complainants involved in the case.

Issue 4: Compliance with the judgment in V.K.Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another (2013) 7 SCC 211

The court analyzed the V.K.Bansal judgment, which discussed the discretionary power of courts to direct concurrent sentences. It was clarified that sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation cannot run concurrently, a crucial aspect overlooked by the petitioner's counsel.

Issue 5: Consideration of separate transactions and complainants in the case

The court noted that multiple cheques were involved in distinct transactions, leading to separate criminal cases against the petitioner. The respondents argued against concurrent sentences, asserting the independence of each transaction and complainant.

Issue 6: Analysis of the jail authorities' role in releasing the petitioner

The court considered the jail authorities' failure to release the petitioner post his one-year sentence. The respondents, including the High Court Government Pleader, emphasized the legal requirement for default sentences to be consecutive, not concurrent, based on the nature of the offenses.

In conclusion, the court rejected the petitioner's plea, citing the legal provisions that default sentences cannot run concurrently with substantive sentences. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering distinct transactions and complainants in determining the running of sentences, in line with the principles laid down in relevant case law.