The main legal point established in the judgment is that the concession of concurrent running of sentence can be extended only to cases arising out of a single transaction, and the nature of the offence and the facts and circumstances must be considered in exercising the discretion to run sentences concurrently.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question falling for consideration in this case is that whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant in two different cases of conviction under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are to run concurrently or consecutively.

3. For the dishonour of two cheques dated 10.04.2010 and 05.09.2010, for Rs. 2,50,000/-and Rs. 1,25,000/-respectively, two criminal cases being case No. 601/2010 and Criminal Case No. 132A/2010 were initiated against the appellant. In Criminal Case No. 601/2010 (pertaining to the cheque of Rs.2,50,000/-) the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year and six months, by the judgment dated 08.09.2015, affirmed by the Appellate Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 132A/2010 relating to the subsequent cheque dated 05.09.2010 of Rs.1,25,000/-the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year which was reduced to nine months by the High Court.

4. Placing reliance upon judgment of this Court in Shyam Pal Vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr. Reported in 2016 (10) SC 761, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the sentences imposed on the appellant are to run concurrently. In Shyam Pal’s case (supra), this court has held that the concession of concurrent running of sentence can be extended only to the cases arising out of a single transaction. Para (13) of the Shyam Pal case read as under:

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 v. State of Haryana where it was held that though it is manifest from Section 427(1), that the Court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that a subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentences, the very nature of the power so conferred, predicates that the discretion, would have to be exercised along judicial lines or not in a mechanical or pedantic manner. It was underlined that there is no cut and dried formula for the court to follow, in the exercise of such power and that the justifiability or otherwise of the same, would depend on the nature of the offence or offences committed and the attendant facts and circumstances. It was however postulated, that the legal position favours the exercise of the discretion to the benefit of the prisoners in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction, no matter even if different complaints in relation thereto might have been filed. The caveat as well was that such a concession cannot be extended to transaction which are distinctly different, separate and independent of each other and amongst others where the parties are not the same.

5. As pointed out earlier in the present case the appellant’s conviction arose out of two different cheques dated 10.04.2010 and 05.09.2010 and it cannot be said that the conviction arose out of a single transaction warranting exercise of discretion to direct the sentences to run concurrently.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, prayed for mercy and submitted that the appellant has already undergone one year and six months insofar as conviction in Criminal Case No. 601/2010 is concerned and, therefore, prayed for reduction of sentence in Criminal Case No. 132A of 2010.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment of nine months in Criminal Case No. 132A/2010 (Criminal Revision No. 2363 of 2017) is reduced to three months. So far as sentence of imprisonment of one year and six months in Criminal Case No. 601 of 2010 is concerned, the same is affirmed. So the total sentence of imprisonment would be 18 months in Criminal Case No. 601/2010 and three months in Criminal Case No. 132A of 2010.

8. The appeal is partly allowed.