Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sri Ganapathi and Sri Chandrashekar, are 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 nine complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioners and the partnership firm. The complaints were tried by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, resulting in the conviction of the petitioners. The trial court imposed 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 a direction that the sentences of imprisonment run concurrently and that the period of detention already undergone be set off. The High Court noted that the offences arose from a single business transaction and that the petitioners had already suffered substantial punishment. The court held that the ends of justice would be met by directing that all sentences of imprisonment run concurrently. It also directed that the period of detention already undergone by the petitioners be set off against the sentence of imprisonment under Section 428 CrPC. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Concurrent Sentence - Section 427 CrPC - Multiple Convictions - Petitioners were convicted in nine separate cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonour of cheques issued in the course of business - The trial court imposed separate sentences of imprisonment ranging from 3 months to 1 year, with fines and default sentences - The High Court, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, directed that all sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently, as the offences arose from a single transaction and the petitioners had already suffered substantial punishment - Held that the ends of justice require concurrent running of sentences to avoid disproportionate hardship (Paras 1-4). B) Criminal Procedure - Set-off of Pre-trial Detention - Section 428 CrPC - The court directed that the period of detention already undergone by the petitioners shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed, in accordance with Section 428 CrPC - Held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of set-off for the period they were in custody during investigation, inquiry, or trial (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners in multiple cheque dishonour cases should be directed to run concurrently, and whether the period of detention already undergone should be set off against the sentence.
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 shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the petitioners shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment under Section 428 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 427 CrPC
- Section 428 CrPC
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- concurrent sentence
- default sentence
- set-off of pre-trial detention
