Sentences for distinct transactions under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be ordered to run concurrently.

JUDGMENT : 

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuance of an appropriate order or directions to the respondent No.1 to run the sentence awarded to the petitioner in two separate cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“in short NI Act) concurrently instead of consecutively.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in a complaint case number 247/1 of 2014, title Rajeev Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act) before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (1), Amb, District Una, who convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three months, pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000 and in default of payment of compensation to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner was also tried and convicted in Complaint Case number 293-1-17/14 titled Manmohan Prakash versus Rakesh Kumar by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (II) Amb, District Una, for the commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act, and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000. Both complaints arose from the friendly loan taken by the petitioner during late 2013 and early 2014. The petitioner issued different cheques in favour of the complainants. Both complaints relate to the same chain of events and are related to each other. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the judgments and orders passed by the learned Trial Court, and they have attained finality. The petitioner was arrested and sent to serve the sentences imposed upon him. The petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment and would face hardship if the sentences are not ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the petition.

3. I have heard Mr Dhiraj K Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr Dhiraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court has the power under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to order that the sentences imposed by the Courts in different cases be run concurrently. The petitioner would suffer hardship if the sentences imposed upon him were not ordered to run concurrently. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the sentences be ordered to run concurrently. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana 2013 (7) SCC 211 in support of his submission.

5. Mr Jitender K Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that this Court has already held in Cr. MMO No. 1268 of 2023 titled Balbir Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 21.08.2024, that the sentences  awarded  in  different  cases  pertaining  to  different transactions having taken place at different places cannot be ordered to run concurrently. The petition is misconceived. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. It was laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar @ Shashi versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 (1) Shimla Law Cases 214 that when a person was convicted for the commission of two offences in separate trials in respect of different transactions, the Court cannot pass a direction that sentences should run concurrently. It was observed:

“12. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and another, [(1988) 4 SCC 183], while taking note of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure observed that the crime committed by the accused is relevant for measuring the sentence, but the maximum sentence awarded in one case aga