2022 Supreme(P&H) 1796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj , J.
Yogesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRR No. 3415 of 2019 (O&M), CRR No. 3411 of 2019 (O&M), CRR No. 3406 of 2019 (O&M) and CRR No. 3403 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-06-2022

Headnote:

The Court held that the sentences should be ordered to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') where the petitioner-accused is being prosecuted for having issued four different cheques in discharge of his liability and four independent complaints have been filed relating to dishonour of each cheque. The Court observed that the petitioner had issued four cheques of a total amount of Rs.34 lakhs in discharge of a single consolidated liability and as such, irrespective of the different dates mentioned in the cheque, they must be read as a part of one single transaction. The Court further observed that the liability having been crystallized, the issuance of the cheques would invariably form a part of the same or single comprehensive transaction and should not be regarded as commission of separate and distinct offences. Resultantly, the sentence ought to be ordered to run concurrently.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-accused being proprietor of M/s Sukhdev Money Changer, Anarkali Bazar, Ishar Chowk, Near Gurudwara Atma Singh, Jagraon, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana had borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- in cash and that towards discharge of his liability/debt, the cheque No. 000310 dated 01.02.2014 drawn on HDFC Bank, Jagraon had been issued which was presented and dishonoured vide memo dated 03.02.2014 with the remarks 'Stop Payment'. The petitioner-accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon vide judgment dated 12.06.2017. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana was dismissed vide judgment dated 01.11.2019.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the sentences should be ordered to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. where the petitioner-accused is being prosecuted for having issued four different cheques in discharge of his liability and four independent complaints have been filed relating to dishonour of each cheque. The Court observed that the petitioner had issued four cheques of a total amount of Rs.34 lakhs in discharge of a single consolidated liability and as such, irrespective of the different dates mentioned in the cheque, they must be read as a part of one single transaction. The Court further observed that the liability having been crystallized, the issuance of the cheques would invariably form a part of the same or single comprehensive transaction and should not be regarded as commission of separate and distinct offences. Resultantly, the sentence ought to be ordered to run concurrently.

Issues: Whether the sentences should be ordered to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. where the petitioner-accused is being prosecuted for having issued four different cheques in discharge of his liability and four independent complaints have been filed relating to dishonour of each cheque.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following precedents to arrive at its decision: * Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Asstt. Collector, Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 467 of1988 * V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and another reported as (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211 * Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar and another v. the State of Uttar Pradesh bearing Criminal Appeal No. 526 of2021 dated 25.05.2021 * Nagpal Traders v. Davinder Singh reported as 2014 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 96 * State of Punjab v. Madan Lal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 529 of2004 decided on 05.03.2009 * Jang Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 323 * Kamal Kant Ray Chaudhary v. Emperor reported as 1937 ILR 98 * State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chimalapati Ganesh Rao and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1961 decided on 23.04.1963 * Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya and another reported as (2016) 10 SCC 761 * Benson v. State of Kerala - Criminal Appeal No.958 of 2016 (since disposed of on 03.10.2016) * Mohan v. A.K Vijay Kumar passed in Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 2012 decided on 03.07.2012 * Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors., 1988(2) RCR (Criminal) 394 : (1988)4 SCC 551 * Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan reported as (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 420 * Vijayan v. Sadanandan K. & Anr., 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 969 : 2009(3) R.A.J. 525 : (2009)6 SCC 652 * K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999)7 SCC 510 * Kumaran v. State of Kerala and another passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 896-897 decided on 05.05.2017

Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the petitions and directed that the sentences imposed in CRR No. 3406-2019 arising out of Criminal Appeal No.45, CRR No. 3411-2019 arising out of Criminal Appeal No.46 and CRR No. 3415-2019 arising out of Criminal Appeal No.48 in case titled 'Yogesh Kumar versus Parveen Kumar' are directed to run concurrently. The Court further directed that in the event of the petitioner-accused committing default in payment of compensation as directed by the Lower Appellate Court, he shall undergo a sentence of 06 months of simple imprisonment, as a maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is 02 years and by virtue of Section 65 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the default sentence ought not to exceed 1/4th of the maximum sentence so prescribed for the substantive offence. The Court also directed that the default sentence imposed against non-payment of the compensation shall run consecutively and is not to run concurrently with the substantive sentence already ordered to run concurrently. The Court further directed that the respondent-complainant shall be entitled to seek recovery of the compensation awarded against the petitioner-accused despite them having undergone a default sentence for non-payment of compensation in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Kumaran versus State of Kerala and another' passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 896-897 decided on 05.05.2017.