Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Surender Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Moudgil, J.
By way of this common order, this Court intends to dispose off, all the afore-said petitions together, as common question of law is involved in all the petitions.
Prayer
2. The afore-said revision petitions have been preferred against judgment dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat whereby, the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2018 and order of sentence dated 28.02.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat in different Complaints bearing CIS Nos. COMA-5268-2013, COMA-5267-2013, COMA-5269-2013 & COMA-5270-2013 vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in each complaint for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1881'), has been upheld. The petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in two cases and Rs. 4,00,000/- in other two cases, under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. to the complainant.
Contentions:
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that she does not want to challenge the conviction of the
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.
The court clarified that unless explicitly ordered, sentences from multiple convictions run consecutively under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., accommodating set-off for time served, emphasizing the legislat....
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 may exercise discretion under Section 427 Cr.P.C. to allow concurrent sentences to meet the ends of justice, while default sentences for non-payment of fines must run consecutively.
The court established that discretion under Section 427 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to allow concurrent sentences to prevent injustice.
The court may direct sentences to run concurrently under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., considering the nature of offenses and the defendant's likelihood of reform.
offences like theft, housebreaking, lurking house trespass - Petitioner is involved in several cases and after taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances, it was observed that petitione....
(1) If a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at expiration of im....
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
