Court may direct sentences to run concurrently when convictions arise out of a single transaction, ensuring proper legal principles are followed under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

Since both the petitions are preferred by the same petitioner, namely Sunita, wherein, a common legal issue has been raised, therefore, being amenable for a common decision, same are being taken up together for final disposal.

2. Through the instant revision petitions, challenge is thrown to the verdict of conviction, and consequent thereto, order of sentence dated 08.01.2019, whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial court concerned’), has convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I.Act’), in private complaint cases bearing Nos.NACT/222/2017, and case no.NACT/197/2017 respectively, and, sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 year respectively, with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-, respectively.

3. In addition, the petitioner has also assailed the verdict dated 06.05.2024, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, has dismissed the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner, and upheld the verdict of conviction and order of sentence (supra), which propelled the present petitioner to file the instant revision petitions.

4. For sake of brevity the facts of the instant case are being are being taken from CRR no.1062 of 2024, to adjudicate the legal issue as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits without going into the merits of the case, that the petitioner is not assailing the verdict of conviction in both the revisions, as her grievances is only with regard to the part of sentence awarded to her vide order of sentence (supra) in both the petitions.

6. He further submits that the respondent no.1/complainant, in the instant case, is the same person who has filed two different complaints qua the cheques in question, and are arising out of same transaction, as per the allegation, the petitioner had issued two cheques (supra), in discharge of her loan liability towards respondent no. 1/complainant.

7. By referring to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of “Manoj Jain vs. State of UT, Chandigarh and another”, [2024 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2126] : (in CRM- M-44318-2022, decided on 14.06.2024), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant matters, the convictions in both the complaint cases arise out of a single transaction. Therefore, the learned trial court concerned, ought to have considered the case of concurrence at the time of pronouncing the order of sentence, however, that exercise has not been done.

8. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner were opposed by learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant. He submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted by the learned trial court concerned, and there is no illegality or perversity in the verdicts of sentence, which require any interference of this Court. However, he fairly admits that both the cheques, qua which two different complaints (supra), has been filed by respondent no.2/complainant, arises out of a single transaction.

9. Before embarking upon the legal submissions, as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apt to note the factual m