TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imple imprisonment awarded to the appellant in the two complaint cases referred to hereinabove would run concurrently. Needless to say, the appellant would have to serve the default sentences, if the fine by way of compensation, as imposed, has not been paid by him. The appeals are thus allowed to this extent. The appellant would be entitled to all consequential reliefs with regard to his release from custody as available in law based on this determination. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 988-989 OF 2016 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NOS.6226-27 OF 2016) - - - Dated:- 28-10-2016 - DIPAK MISRA AMITAVA ROY JJ. For Appellant(s) Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Adv. Mr. Honey Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ajay P. Tushir., Adv. Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR J U D G M E N T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had requested for a loan of ₹ 5 lacs to meet his personal needs which he promised to return on 13.11.2009. On this, as the complaint reads, the respondent/complainant reminded him that she had already lent a sum of ₹ 5 lacs to him on 01.05.2008 and that she had no funds to accede to his request for the second installment. However, having regard to the friendly relations, the respondent/complainant on the persuasion of the appellant, did advance a further amount of ₹ 5 lacs to him as loan on that date, by somehow arranging the same. (4) According to the respondent/complainant in connection with the loans advanced, the appellant had issued two cheques bearing Nos.97357 and 97358 for ₹ 5 lacs each and drawn on State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... victions in the two complaint cases, being Criminal Revision Petition No.403 of 2015 (pertaining to the present appeals) and Criminal Revision Petition No.404 of 2015. By separate orders dated 08.02.2016, both these revision petitions were disposed of by maintaining the conviction but moderating the default sentence from simple imprisonment of six months to that of three months. In both the petitions as well, by separate orders dated 22.02.2016, the High Court declined to release the appellant by acting on his plea that he meanwhile had served the substantive as well as default sentence, if construed to have run concurrently. It is a matter of record, that the special leave petition filed against the orders dated 08.02.2016 and 22.02.2016 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant on two different dates against which the latter had issued cheques to discharge his debt and that the cheques had been dishonored. The facts pleaded and proved do unassailably demonstrate that the loans advanced had been in the course of a series of transactions between the same parties on same terms and conditions. Significantly in both the cases, following the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Act, the same sentences as well have been awarded. There is thus an overwhelming identicalness in the features of both the cases permitting, the two transactions, though undertaken at different points of time, to be deemed as a singular transaction or two segments of one transaction. This deduction understandably is in the sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. (13) Though this provision has fallen for scrutiny of this Court umpteen times, we can profitably refer to one of the recent pronouncements in V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana and Another (2013) 7 SCC 211 where it was held that though it is manifest from Section 427(1), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 (since disposed of on 03.10.2016) and the accompanying appeals, arising from the conviction of the appellant from his prosecution on the offences proved, this Court in the singular facts as involved and having regard to the duration of his incarceration and the remission earned by him, extended the benefit of such discretion and directed that the sentences awarded to him in those cases would run concurrently. It was noticeably recorded that the offences in the cases under scrutiny had been committed on the same day. The benefit of the discretion was accorded to the appellant therein referring as well to the observation in V.K. Bansal (supra) that it is difficult to lay down any straight jacket approach in the matter and that a di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
