Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Lalit Lal Chandani and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and Others – Respondents
CRM-M No. 23423 of 2019
Decided On : 24-07-2023
Concurrency of Sentences - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Section 427 - 138 Negotiable Instruments Act - 1881 - [Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 427(1) and (2) Cr.P.C., Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 427(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and their application to the case. It highlighted the distinction between the situations covered by the two subsections and the general principle that sentences should take effect immediately on conviction. The court also referred to relevant case law and emphasized that the benefit of concurrent sentences cannot be sought through a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. once the judgments of conviction and sentences have attained finality in different cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought concurrency of sentences in 28 different cases under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They argued that the sentences in all the cases should run concurrently as they arose from the same business and were of similar nature. The petitioners contended that the sentences in different cases arising from the same business cannot be made to run consecutively, as it would be against the legislative intention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for concurrency of sentence is not maintainable once the judgments of conviction and sentences have attained finality in different cases. It held that the benefit of concurrent sentences cannot be sought through a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the petition on this ground.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition seeking concurrency of sentences in 28 different cases under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the benefit of concurrent sentences cannot be sought through a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. once the judgments of conviction and sentences have attained finality in different cases. It emphasized that the power to order concurrency of sentences can be exercised only by the sentencing Court or by the Court dealing with the appeal or revision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition seeking concurrency of sentences in 28 different cases under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the ground of maintainability.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 to be read with Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’] petitioners pray that substantive sentences awarded to them in as many as 28 different cases be directed to run concurrently.
2. Initially said concurrency of sentence was sought in 38 cases. During pendency of the petition, some more cases were added and some were deleted. As of now, relief is sought to order concurrency of sentences in 28 cases as detailed in Annexure C1 (6 pages), forming part of this judgment.
3. It is contended by the petitioners that FIR No. 208 of 2014 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda against petitioners and others, in which conviction has been recorded and the appeal has been dismissed despite the fact that petitioners did not have any dishonest intention to cheat their business partners. In fact, as per the memorandum of understanding, the business partners had invested the money and payments were to be made as per schedule. However, after lodging of the FIR, business of the company was shut down due to heavy losses. The complainant and other witnesses also filed various complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short ‘the Act’] on the same sets of facts, in which the petitioners have been convicted and the complainants have been awarded compensation.
4. Petitioners contend that they are in custody ever since their time of arrest on 16.12.2014 in FIR No. 208 of 2014 and it is due to their bad financial condition and circumstances beyond their control that cheques bounced and they have been convicted in 26 cases filed under Negotiable Instrument Act besides in two FIR cases. Both of them are highly educated and their old age parents/wife/children are dependent upon them. After giving details of all the convictions and sentences, it is contended that total length of sentence for petitioner No. 1 would be around 61.5 years and for petitioner No. 2, it will be 59.5 years. It is urged that facts of all the cases are of similar nature and that all the cases have arisen out of the same business. Still further, it is contended that legislature intended to provide maximum punishment to an accused convicted of an offence under Section 138 of the Act as two years apart from the compensation to the complainant to the extent of twice the cheque amount. It is argued that for conviction recorded in different cases arising out of the same business, different sentences given in different cases cannot be made to run consecutively, as it will be against the legislative intention. By referring to Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. learned counsel for the petitioners contend that even the life convict has been held entitled to the benefit of subsequent sentence being run concurrently, be it life term or any other lesser term and, therefore, different yardstick cannot be applied for those persons, who have been sentenced of lesser duration than the life unless there are compelling reasons to do so. It is urged that in the present case there is no such compelling reason to order to run the sentences in 28 cases as consecutively.
5. With all the aforesaid submissions, the prayer is made to direct sentences in all the 28 cases to run concurrently. To fortify his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the following judgments:
(ii) V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (3) RCR (Criminal) 983 (SC)
(iii) Arjan Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 2016 (2) Cri. L.R. (Raj) 346
(iv) Rajender vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 (2) Cri. L.R. (Raj) 561
(v) Laxmi Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 (3) Cri. L.R. 1167
(vi) Dhiraj Singh vs. State, through Secretary, Department of Home, 2021 (3) RLW 1601
(vii) Sameer Ahmad and Others vs. State of Haryana, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 612
(viii) Anil Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (1) RCR (Criminal) 691 (SC)
6. Although, lear
The benefit of concurrent sentences cannot be sought through a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. once the judgments of conviction and sentences have attained finality in different cases.
Sentences for distinct transactions under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be ordered to run concurrently.
Court can use discretion under Section 427 of CrPC to allow concurrent sentences in cases arising from similar transactions, particularly for financial offences without violence.
The court applied the discretion under section 427 Cr.P.C. to allow concurrent running of substantive sentences, considering the petitioner's prolonged detention and the nature of the offences.
The court can exercise discretion under Section 427 CrPC to allow concurrent sentences to prevent excessive punishment and ensure justice.
Point of law : 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 compl....
The court affirmed that Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. allows for discretion in sentencing, but such discretion must be exercised judiciously, particularly when dealing with multiple convictions from dif....
The court applied section 427 Cr.P.C. and relevant Supreme Court precedents to allow concurrent running of substantive sentences for multiple convictions under section 138 of the N.I. Act, considerin....
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
