IMPORTANT POINTS
In case of two complaints in respect of two loans advanced in the course of a series of transactions between the same parties on same terms and conditions; both complaints tried together; same sentences awarded in both complaints but to run consequently are two transactions. However, though undertaken at different points of time, the two transactions should be deemed as a singular transaction or two segments of one transaction.
Successive sentences may be directed to run concurrently if both transactions are part of single transaction.

JUDGMENT

AMITAVA ROY, J.

The instant appeals call in question the judgment and order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.403 of 2015, sustaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”) as recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed in appeal by the District and Sessions Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi. The High Court while maintaining the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for 10 months and fine of Rs.6,50,000/-as compensation as awarded by the Trial Court, however has reduced the default sentence from six months simple imprisonment to that of three months. The order dated 22.02.2016 rendered by the High Court declining the prayer for modification of the above decision by directing the release of the appellant, he having already served the sentence in all being in custody from 25.02.2015 has been assailed in the present appeals as well.

(2) We have heard Mr. Jayant K. Sud, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents.

(3) The recorded facts divulge that the respondent No.1 had filed two complaints, both under Section 138 of the Act against the appellant in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South East), Patiala House Court, New Delhi which were registered as C.C. No.407 of 2011 and C.C. No.430 of 2011 alleging that on 31.07.2008 the appellant had visited the residence of the complainant and had requested for a loan of Rs.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 Rs.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 Rs.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 Rs.5 lacs each and drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Arnar Colony, New Delhi. Both these cheques when presented at the appropriate time, were dishonored with the remarks “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant issued legal notices and as the same though served, remained unresponded, complaints were filed.

(5) As eventually the arguments in the present appeals have centered around the sentence alone, we do not wish to burden the present rendering with avoidable facts.

(6) The Trial Court after a full dress adjudication, in the two proceedings, returned a finding that the signatures on the cheques were not disputed by the appellant and indeed were issued in discharge of legally recoverable debts subsisting against him and acting on the presumption available under Section 139 of the Act convicted him of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Consequently, he was awarded simple imprisonment for 10 months and fine of Rs.6,50,000/-as compensation in both the cases. In case of default of payment of compensation, the appellant was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment of six months in each case. This was by judgments and orders dated 21.01.2014.

(7) The appellant having unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction and sentence before District and Sessions Judge (South East), Saket Court, New Delhi, in both the cases, approached the High Court in revision.

(8) To reiterate, the appellant preferred two revision petitions before the High Court corresponding to his convictions 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 def