Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 488 - SC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque u/s 138 N.I. Act - Whether the High Court was right in declining the prayer made by the appellant for a direction in terms of Section 427 r.w. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the sentences awarded to the appellant in connection with the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed against him to run concurrently – Held that:- Court affirmed the direction of the High Court for the sentences to run concurrently - The legal position favours exercise of discretion to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the prosecution was based on a single transaction no matter different complaints in relation thereto may had been filed as is the position in cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by the borrower towards repayment of a loan to the creditor - the cases against the appellant fall in three distinct categories - The transactions forming the basis of the prosecution relate to three different corporate entities who had either entered into loan transactions with the State Financial Corporation or taken some other financial benefit like purchase of a cheque from the appellant that was on presentation dishonoured -The cases that had culminated in the conviction of the appellant and the award of sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed. Power available to the Court under Section 427(1) of the Code stipulated a general rule to be followed except in three situations - It was manifest from Section 427(1) that the Court had the power and the discretion to issue a direction but in the very nature of the power so conferred upon the Court the discretionary power shall had to be exercised along judicial lines and not in a mechanical, wooden or pedantic manner - It was difficult to lay down any strait jacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the Courts - There was no cut and dried formula for the Court to follow in the matter of issue or refusal of a direction within the contemplation of Section 427(1). Extension of Concession - There was no reason to extend that concession to transactions in which the borrowing company was different no matter the appellant before us is the promoter/Director of the said other companies also - the direction regarding concurrent running of sentence shall be limited to the substantive sentence only - The sentence which the appellant had been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be affected by this direction - the provisions of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction for the concurrent running of the substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation – Decided partly in favor of appellant.
|