9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radesh in Criminal Petition No. 3917 of 2005. 3. Appellant was a bank employee. He worked as a Manager in Syndicate Bank at its Branch at Abid Road, Hyderabad. His job was to advance loans. Allegedly, in one case he sanctioned a loan to a customer for Black & White Television, while the scheme was for something else. In another case he sanctioned a loan for obtaining plots from the Housing Society. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had also filed chargesheets against the appellant in both the cases. Two cases were, thus, came to be registered against him; one being Criminal Case No. 9 of 1992 and another being Criminal Case No. 5 of 1993. The judgment in the first case was pronounced by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Court on 04.07.1997 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted to run concurrently. The said application has been rejected by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment. 5. Mr. V.B. Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would, inter alia, submit that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the fact that the nature of offence in both the cases being the same, the High Court should have directed that sentences imposed upon the appellant to run concurrently and not consecutively. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under : 427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.-(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to impriso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant, the High Court heard both the matters almost at the same time, no such prayer appears to have been made, nor the same fell for consideration by the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions filed by the appellant, as noticed hereinbefore, have also been dismissed. 7. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Joshi on a decision of this Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and Anr. 1989CriLJ283 . Therein the court upheld a contention that if a given transaction constitutes two offences under the enactments, generally it would be wrong to impose consecutive sentences. It was, however, opined that it would be proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
