MP High Court Directs Concurrent Running of 22 NI Act Sentences, Citing S.427 CrPC / S.467 BNSS Discretion to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice

MP High Court Orders Concurrent Sentences in 22 Cheque Bounce Cases, Citing Discretionary Power to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice

Jabalpur: In a significant ruling addressing the cumulative impact of multiple convictions under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has directed that the substantive sentences imposed on a former company director in 22 separate cheque bounce cases shall run concurrently. The court emphasized the discretionary power vested under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 467 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to ensure justice and prevent an inordinately long period of incarceration for offences of a similar nature.

The order was passed by the single bench of Hon’ble Shri Justice SanjayDwivedi on April 24, 2025, in response to a petition filed by Ramakant Vijaywargiya , a former Director of M/s Distinct Infrastructure Ltd.

Case Background

Ramakant Vijaywargiya faced 22 convictions under Section 138 of the NI Act stemming from a failed real estate project, "Panchvati Enclave/Panchvati Phase-3," developed by his company, DIL. According to the case details, DIL had entered into agreements with numerous buyers after receiving payments but allegedly failed to execute sale deeds or return the advance amounts due to complications with land acquisition and disputes with farmers and a construction partner. This led to approximately 250 disgruntled buyers filing complaints and FIRs, resulting in dishonoured cheques and subsequent legal proceedings under the NI Act.

The petitioner argued that while he was convicted in 22 separate cases, these arose from a single underlying transaction or a series of transactions related to the same project failure. He highlighted his age (70 years) and the potential cumulative sentence, which if run consecutively, could exceed 30 years of imprisonment, arguing this would amount to his entire remaining life being spent in custody for offences that carry a maximum sentence of two years.

Petitioner's Plea and State's Opposition

Represented by Senior Advocate Shri Anil Khare, the petitioner sought directions for all his sentences to run concurrently, relying on various Supreme Court and High Court precedents, notably the case of V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another . Khare contended that the power under Section 427 CrPC (now Section 467 BNSS) could be exercised even after the final decision in the cases and that, given the similar nature of the offences arising from a related set of circumstances, concurrent sentences were warranted.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Shri B.K. Upadhyay, opposed the plea, arguing that each case was distinct and individual, leading to separate convictions and thus requiring consecutive sentences.

Court Examines Legal Precedents

Justice Dwivedi meticulously examined the provisions of Section 427 CrPC and relevant case law. The court noted that while the general rule dictates subsequent sentences commence after the expiration of previous sentences, the provision explicitly grants the court discretion to direct concurrent running of sentences.

The judgment delved into the "single transaction" principle discussed in V.K. Bansal , where the Supreme Court favored exercising discretion for concurrent sentences in cases arising from a single transaction, such as multiple dishonoured cheques related to a single loan. The court also acknowledged the subsequent Supreme Court case K. Padamaja Rani which appeared to limit the application of V.K. Bansal strictly to convictions arising out of a "single transaction."

However, the court placed significant reliance on later Supreme Court decisions, including Benson v. State of Kerala , Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya , and P.N. Mohanam Nair , which reinforced the discretionary nature of Section 427, particularly in the context of NI Act cases.

The Discretionary Power to Ensure Justice

Crucially, the court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh , which, relying on Mohd. Zahid , clarified that the power and discretion under Section 427(1) CrPC must be exercised judiciously based on the nature of the offence and the facts of the situation to avoid any "serious miscarriage of justice."

Justice Dwivedi observed that while the "single transaction" rule is a guiding principle, the discretionary power under Section 427 is broader. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that 22 convictions under Section 138 NI Act could result in a total sentence exceeding 30 years, the court found this outcome "beyond the realm of imagination" for this type of offence.

Decision

Exercising the power under Section 427 CrPC (read with Section 528 BNSS), the High Court directed that the substantive sentences awarded to Ramakant Vijaywargiya in all 22 cases shall run concurrently.

The court clarified, however, that the sentences imposed in default of payment of fine or compensation in each case would not run concurrently. As per settled law affirmed by the Supreme Court, default sentences must be served consecutively if the fine/compensation is not paid.

The petition was accordingly allowed, granting significant relief to the petitioner by limiting his period of incarceration to the length of the longest substantive sentence among the 22 cases, while still obligating him to pay the compensation/fine amounts in each case to avoid consecutive default sentences.