The central legal point established is that when offences arise from a common transaction and are tried together, the court has the discretion to order concurrent running of sentences under Section 427 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Bajaj, J. - Shashi Bhushan has filed this petition under Section 427 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for modification of the sentence part as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by Appellate Court only to the extent that sentences awarded to the petitioner on the same date in three different complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 be ordered to run concurrently.

2. The facts in brief leading to the present petition are that respondent/complainant filed three different complaints for dishonour of three cheque Nos. 035833 dated 23.04.2015, 035835 dated 23.10.2015 and 035834 dated 23.07.2015 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- each allegedly issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2/complainant.

3. It was mentioned in the complaint that a friendly loan of Rs.3,00,000/- was advanced by the complainant in January, 2015 and to discharge the said liability, the cheques in question were issued. However, the same had dishonoured thereby compelling the complainant to institute the complaints bearing Nos.1265 dated 26.05.2015, 2332 dated 19.10.2015, 2600 dated 02.12.2015. However, there was another complaint bearing No.99 dated 13.01.2016 for a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- wherein he was awarded sentence of six months. However, no appeal was filed against the said judgment of conviction dated 24.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 26.07.2018.

4. After commencement of the proceedings before the trial Court, the same ended in conviction on 10.04.2017 recorded by way of separate judgments in each complaint case. The trial Court imposed simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant, in each case (which are subject matter of this petition).

5. Aggrieved against the said judgments, separate appeals were filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court at Faridabad and during the pendency of the appeal, an attempt was made by the accused (convict) to return the amount in order to compound the offences, however, the said attempt failed and resultantly, for non-payment of the amount of the cheques, the Appellate Court proceeded to uphold the conviction of the petitioner in all the three appeals decided separately on 02.06.2018.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an attempt was made to compound the offence, however, because of financial constraints the convict could not arrange the amount and is resultantly serving the sentence purusant to the abovementioned three convictions. According to him, the sentences would be running consecutively. Further he contends that considering the nature of the offence, it would be in the interest of justice if the concession under Section 427 Cr.P.C is extended to the convict by ordering concurrently running of sentences.

7. On the other hand, prayer is opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and contended that since there were three different complaints pertaining to three cheques issued on different dates, therefore, each complaint is founded on a separate cause of action. It is contended that in case the sentence is ordered to run concurrently, then it would defeat the purpose of sentencing pursuant to the conviction recorded by the Court.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments passed by this Court in CRR-3685-2016, titled as "Ravi Kant Gulati Vs. Qasimuddin" and another judgment passed in CRR-4801-2018, titled as "Gaurav Gupta Vs. Mrs. Damini Pahwa" to contend that in a similar case for the different offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court had extended the concession to the convict.

9. Before adjudicating the issue involved in the petition, it is necessary to read Section 427 Cr.P.C which is extracted below:-

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