Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, partners of M/s S.N. Distributors, issued cheques to respondent No.1 (M/s Wipro Limited) in connection with business. The cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Respondent No.1 filed multiple complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioners and the firm. The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, convicted the petitioners and imposed sentences of imprisonment ranging from 3 months to 1 year, along with fines and default sentences in each case. The petitioners filed this petition under Section 482 read with Sections 427 and 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking that all sentences of imprisonment run concurrently. The High Court noted that the petitioners had already deposited the entire compensation amount as directed by the trial court. Considering the circumstances, the court allowed the petition and directed that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently, but clarified that the fine amounts and default sentences remain separate and are not affected by this order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentence - Section 427 CrPC - Section 482 CrPC - Petitioners were convicted in multiple cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and fines. They sought that all sentences run concurrently. The High Court, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, directed that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently, while the fine amounts and default sentences remain separate. Held that the court can order concurrent running of sentences to avoid undue hardship, but fine and default sentences are not affected by such order (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in multiple cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, should be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in C.C.Nos.26727/2011, 27374/2011, 27375/2011, 27377/2011, 27378/2011, 27379/2011, 27381/2011, 27382/2011 and C.C.No.27793/2011 on the file of the XIV Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru, shall run concurrently. The fine amounts and default sentences imposed in each case are not affected by this order and shall remain separate.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 427 CrPC
- Section 428 CrPC
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- concurrent sentence
- default sentence
- fine
- imprisonment
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (03) 59
Criminal Petition No.6269/2014
Sri R.V. Shivananda Reddy (for petitioners), Sri Vijay Kumar Majage (HCGP for R2)
Sri Ganapathi and Sri Chandrashekar
M/s. Wipro Limited and State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking direction for concurrent running of sentences in multiple cheque dishonour cases.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought an order that the sentences of imprisonment passed in nine separate cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, run concurrently.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and fines in multiple cases for cheque dishonour; they sought to avoid cumulative imprisonment by having sentences run concurrently.
Previous Decisions
The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, convicted the petitioners on 19.6.2013 in C.C.Nos.26727/2011, 27374/2011, 27375/2011, 27377/2011, 27378/2011, 27379/2011, 27381/2011, 27382/2011 and C.C.No.27793/2011, imposing sentences of imprisonment ranging from 3 months to 1 year, with fines and default sentences.
Issues
Whether the sentences of imprisonment in multiple cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, should be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they had already deposited the entire compensation amount as directed by the trial court and sought that the sentences of imprisonment run concurrently to avoid undue hardship.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when a person is convicted of two or more offences at the same trial, the court may direct that the sentences of imprisonment run concurrently. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to avoid undue hardship. In this case, since the petitioners had deposited the entire compensation, the court directed concurrent running of imprisonment sentences, but fine and default sentences remain unaffected.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are the partners of M/s. S.N. Distributors. In connection with the business of the said Firm, they had issued cheques in favour of respondent No.1.
The cheques on presentation were dishonoured by the bank concerned, for insufficiency of funds.
Consequently, respondent No.1 instituted complaints under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners and the partnership firm.
Complaints were tried by the XIV ACMM, Bengaluru, culminating in conviction of the petitioners and imposition of sentences of imprisonment, which ranges between 3 months to one year, besides imposition of different amounts of fine in each case and default sentence.
The sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in all the cases shall run concurrently. The fine amounts and default sentences imposed in each case are not affected by this order and shall remain separate.
Procedural History
The petitioners were convicted by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on 19.6.2013 in nine separate cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. They filed this petition under Section 482 read with Sections 427 and 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking concurrent running of sentences. The High Court allowed the petition on 25.3.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 427, 428, 482
