Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sri Ganapathi and Sri Chandrashekar, were partners of M/s. S.N. Distributors. In connection with the firm's business, they issued cheques in favour of respondent No.1, M/s. Wipro Limited. The cheques were dishonoured upon presentation due to insufficiency of funds. Consequently, respondent No.1 filed multiple complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioners and the firm. The complaints were tried by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, resulting in the conviction of the petitioners and imposition of sentences of imprisonment ranging from 3 months to 1 year, along with fines and default sentences in each case. The petitioners filed a criminal petition under Section 482 read with Sections 427 and 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking an order that the sentences of imprisonment in all cases run concurrently. The High Court noted that the petitioners had already undergone imprisonment in some cases and that the offences arose from a single transaction of business dealings. The court, exercising its inherent powers, directed that the sentences of imprisonment imposed in all the cases shall run concurrently, while the fine amounts and default sentences remained unaffected. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentences - Section 427 CrPC - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The petitioners, partners of a firm, were convicted in multiple complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonour of cheques issued to the complainant. The trial court imposed separate sentences of imprisonment ranging from 3 months to 1 year in each case. The High Court, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, directed that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently, as the offences arose from a single transaction of business dealings and the petitioners were already undergoing imprisonment. The court held that it is just and proper to order concurrent sentences to avoid undue hardship. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in multiple cheque dishonour 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 High Court allowed the petition and directed that the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in all the nine cases shall run concurrently. The fine amounts and default sentences remain unaffected.
Law Points
- Concurrent sentences
- Section 427 CrPC
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Cheque dishonour
- Multiple complaints
- Discretion of court
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (04) 58
Criminal Petition No.6269/2014
Sri R.V. Shivananda Reddy for petitioners; Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, HCGP for respondent No.2; respondent No.1 served and unrepresented
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 concurrent running of sentences in multiple cheque dishonour cases.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought an order that the sentences of imprisonment passed by the XIV ACMM, Bengaluru on 19.6.2013 in nine separate cases run concurrently.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in multiple cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonour of cheques issued to respondent No.1.
Previous Decisions
The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, convicted the petitioners and imposed sentences of imprisonment ranging from 3 months to 1 year, with fines and default sentences, 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 19.6.2013.
Issues
Whether the sentences of imprisonment in multiple cheque dishonour cases should be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the offences arose from a single transaction of business dealings and that they had already undergone imprisonment in some cases, warranting concurrent sentences to avoid undue hardship.
Ratio Decidendi
Where multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a person for offences arising out of the same transaction, the court may, in the interests of justice, order the sentences to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, especially when the accused has already undergone imprisonment in some cases.
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.
In the circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to order that the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in all the cases shall run concurrently.
Procedural History
The petitioners were convicted and sentenced 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 then filed Criminal Petition No.6269/2014 under Section 482 read with Sections 427 and 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Karnataka, 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
