Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Cyrus Noshirwan Kartak, was a director of Mintaur Engineering Private Ltd. The respondent-complainant sold and delivered goods to the company, and an amount of Rs.22,68,07,788/- was due. In discharge of this liability, the accused drew 60 cheques, which were dishonoured upon presentment between 7 July 2014 and 30 July 2014. The complainant lodged 17 complaints on 12 September 2014 before the same court. After trial, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 63rd Court, Andheri, convicted the petitioner under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in all 17 complaints on 9 May 2017. The petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 15 months and ordered to pay distinct amounts of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with a default sentence of 12 months in each case. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently, but the default sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The petitioner appealed to the Sessions Court, which dismissed all appeals on 17 January 2025, affirming the conviction and sentence. The petitioner then filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code, seeking a declaration that he be deemed convicted in only one complaint, or alternatively, that the sentence already undergone be treated as total sentence. The court considered whether each cheque dishonour constitutes a separate offence and whether default sentences can run consecutively. The petitioner argued that the transaction was single and indivisible, so only one complaint should have been filed. The respondent contended that each cheque is a separate instrument and each dishonour is a distinct offence. The court held that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, each cheque dishonour is a separate offence, and the magistrate had discretion to order default sentences consecutively. The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the separate convictions and consecutive default sentences.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Distinct Offences - Each cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 constitutes a separate and distinct offence, even if the cheques were issued in a single transaction. The court held that the petitioner cannot be deemed to have been convicted in only one complaint, as the legislature intended each cheque to be treated independently. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Default Sentence - Consecutive Running - Under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a court may order default sentences to run consecutively. The court upheld the magistrate's direction that default sentences in each case shall run consecutively, as it is within the court's discretion to ensure compliance with compensation orders. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Concurrent Sentence - Substantive vs Default - The direction that substantive sentences run concurrently does not automatically extend to default sentences. The court clarified that the default sentence is a separate penalty for non-payment of compensation and can be ordered to run consecutively. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person convicted for dishonour of multiple cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising from a single transaction, can be deemed to have been convicted in only one complaint, and whether the default sentences in default of payment of compensation can be directed to run consecutively.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court upheld the separate convictions in all 17 complaints and the direction that default sentences run consecutively.
Law Points
- Each cheque dishonour constitutes a distinct offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- even if arising from a single transaction
- Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 allows compensation with default sentence
- default sentences can be ordered to run consecutively
- concurrent running of substantive sentences does not affect default sentences
