Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J.
Smt. C. Bharathi W/o T. Venkataswamy Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Shalini R. W/o Bharathish N. – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 26, 34, 62, 630, 703, 705, 758, 1062, 1098 of 2020, 3977 of 2019
Decided On : 10-03-2021
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 482 and 427 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 395, 392 and 413 – Dishonor of cheque - Repayment of a loan – Appeal against convicted - Petitioner in his arguments vehemently contend petitioner has been serving sentence and already served sentence more than 27 months till filing of petitions - Dictums of various judgments in all cases, approximately, in 11 cases - Petitioner bound to serve 60 months of sentence in aggregately - Trial Court has awarded sentences in different cases but in all cases offences are similar in nature, except complainants are different parties but accused person is same and more so several cheques are being issued in a single transaction - Trial Court ought to have convicted petitioner in all cases, by imposing sentences are to be run concurrently instead of consecutively –
Finding of the Court:
Substantive sentences are awarded along with default sentence - Case of non-payment of fine/compensation - Judgments are also on different - It is settled law there was no cut and dried formula for court to follow, in exercise of such power and justifiability or otherwise of same, would depend on nature of offence or offences committed and attendant facts and circumstances - Legal position favours exercise of discretion to benefit of prisoners in cases prosecution is based on a single transaction, no matter even if different complaints in relation thereto might have been filed - Concession cannot be extended to transactions which are distinctly different, separate and independent of each other and amongst others where parties are not the same - Complainants are different, transactions are different and cause of actions are also different, it is not in respect of single transaction, it is in respect of two chit transactions and also seven different loan transactions –
Result:Petitions are dismissed
ORDER :
1. These petitions are filed by the common accused invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to direct the second respondent to release the petitioner/accused, forthwith, from the Central Prison, Bengaluru, in respect of the following cases in which the petitioner herein convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the NI Act’ for short) and undergoing substantive sentence and default sentence. The details are:
| S. No. | Case No. | Hon'ble Court | U/Sec | Date of Sentence | Sentence | Fine | I/D Sentence |
| 1 | C.C. No. 26312/15 (Crl. Pet. No. 3977/2019) | 19th ACMM, Bengaluru | 138 N.I. Act | 03.04.2017 | -- | 16,80,000 | 6 Months |
| 2 | C.C. No. 26313/15 (Crl. Pet. No. 705/2020) | 19th ACMM, Bengaluru | 138 N.I. Act | 03.04.2017 | -- | 16,90,000 | 6 Months |
| 3 | C.C. No. 28193/15 (Crl. Pet. No. 758/2020) | 13th ACMM, Bengaluru | 138 N.I. Act | 11.04.2017 | -- | 8,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 4 | C.C. No. 744/15 (Crl. Pet. No. 630/2020) | Pril. CJ and JMFC, Anekal | 138 N.I. Act | 21.07.2017 | 6 Months | 11,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 5 | C.C. No. 1204/15 (Crl. Pet. No. 703/2020) | Pril. CJ and JMFC, Anekal | 138 N.I. Act | 21.07.2017 | 6 Months | 36,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 6 | C.C. No. 1205/15 (Crl. Pet. No. 26/2020) | Pril. CJ and JMFC, Anekal | 138 N.I. Act | 21.07.2017 | 6 Months | 28,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 7 | C.C. No. 05/16 (Crl. Pet. No. 34/2020) | Pril. CJ and JMFC, Anekal | 138 N.I. Act | 21.07.2017 | 6 Months | 30,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 8 | C.C. No. 976/16 (Crl. Pet. No. 1062/2020) | Pril. CJ and JMFC, Anekal | 138 N.I. Act | 21.07.2017 | 6 Months | 14,40,000 | 6 Months |
| 9 | C.C. No. 1815/16 (Crl. Pet. No. 62/2020) | Pril. CJ and JMFC, Anekal | 138 N.I. Act | 21.07.2017 | 6 Months | 60,00,000 | 6 Months |
| 10 | C.C. No. 2025/16 (Crl. Pet. No. 1098/2020) | Pril. CJ and JMFC, Anekal | 138 N.I. Act | 21.07.2017 | 6 Months | 70,00,000 | 6 Months |
2. The petitioner, who is the common accused in the above cases. In the petitions, it is contended that consequent upon the Judgment of conviction and sentence in all 10 cases both substantive sentence and default sentence she has been serving sentence in prison from 08.02.2017. Though, the petitioner had made a representation on 22.11.2018 and 05.12.2018, the Government of Karnataka and Chief Superintendent Central Prison, Bengaluru, that she has already served the imprisonment term, despite of which the authorities did not consider the request made by the accused/petitioner, unless this Court interfere and make the sentence to run concurrently instead of consecutively as contemplated under Section 427 of Cr.P.C.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his arguments vehemently contend that the petitioner has been serving the sentence from 08.02.2017 and already served the sentence more than 27 months till filing of the petitions. As per the dictums of various judgments in all cases, approximately, in 11 cases, the petitioner bound to serve 60 months of sentence in aggregately. Though the Trial Court has awarded sentences in different cases but in all cases the offences are similar in nature, except complainants are different parties but accused person is same and more so several cheques are being issued in a single transaction. Thus, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the petitioner in all cases, by imposing sentences are to be run concurrently instead of consecutively. The learned counsel referring to Section 427 of Cr.P.C. vehemently contend that it ought to have been ordered concurrently. The learned counsel in his arguments also vehemently contend that the Trial Court have committed an error in ordering the sentence consecutively.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Madan La
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
