9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endency of these cases. He has shown scant regard to this Court's wishes. The amount involved is about ₹ 14,74,753/-. The Respondent should not have been, therefore, given a flea-bite sentence - the High Court should not have shown leniency to the Respondent. Question of concurrency - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the averments made in the complaints and the judgments of the trial court and lower appellate court that the cheques in question do not relate to one single transaction - the impugned order is set aside. The impugned order are set aside and the order of the trial court restored in all the three cases - Since the enhanced fine amounts have already been paid, there is no need to pass any order in that connection - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The trial court convicted the Respondent in each case for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of ₹ 5,000/- in each of the three complaints. The Sessions Court dismissed the Respondent's appeals. 4. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, the Respondent filed three revision applications in the High Court. The impugned order indicates that during the course of hearing, counsel for the Respondent made a statement that the Respondent does not want to challenge his conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Counsel submitted that the sentence awarded in all the three cases be ordered to run concurrently. The High Court maintained the conviction of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the three cases was about ₹ 14,74,753/-, the High Court ought not to have shown leniency and reduced the sentence to one year's RI in each case and grant concurrency without assigning any reasons for the lenient view. In support of her submissions, counsel relied on State of U.P. v. Chandrika, 1999 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 730 : (1999) 8 SCC 638, Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan, 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 502: (2002) 2 SCC 420 and Jeetu @ Jitendra and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 524: 2012(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 498: (2012) 11 SCALE 630. Counsel submitted that the High Court wrongly granted concurrency because the three cheques related to three different transactions. 7. Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been assigned by the High Court for this approach. This Court has on several occasions cautioned the courts that undue leniency should not be shown to the accused facing charges under Section 138 of the NI Act. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in Suganthi Suresh Kumar where this Court has expressed displeasure about courts imposing a flea-bite sentence on the accused in cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. Following paragraph could be usefully quoted: 12. The total amount covered by the cheques involved in the present two cases was ₹ 4,50,000. There is no case for the Respondent that the said amount had been paid either during the pendency of the cases before the trial court or revision before the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncession and proceed to deal with the sentence, for the said mode and method defeats the fundamental purpose of the justice delivery system. This Court further noted that there are many cases where the High Courts after recording the non-challenge to the conviction, have proceeded to dwell upon the proportionality of the quantum of sentence. It was observed that such a course is impermissible in law and should not be resorted to. We respectfully agree with this view of this Court. We are dealing with one of such cases. In our opinion, the High Court should not have shown leniency to the Respondent. We will have to therefore rectify the error committed by the High Court. 10. So far as the question of concurrency is concerned, it is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
