Smt. C Bharathi vs. Smt. Yashodhamma

1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.705/2020
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1062/2020
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1098/2020
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.26/2020
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.34/2020
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3977/2019
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.62/2020
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.630/2020
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.703/2020
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.758/2020

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.705/2020:

BETWEEN:

SMT.C. BHARATHI
W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT No.137, TCP LAYOUT
OLD CHANDAPURA
BOMMASANDRA POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SMT. SHALINI R.
W/O BHARATHISH N
AGED 29 YEARS


2
R/AT 583, NEAR NERALURU BUS STOP
NERALURU VILLAGE AND POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-562 107

2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-562 100
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
ND
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2 RESPONDENT TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL
PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26313/2015 ON 04.02.2017 BY
XIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1062/2020:

BETWEEN:

SMT.C. BHARATHI
W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT
OLD CHANDAPURA
YELLAMMADEVI PRASANNA NILAYA
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TLAUK
BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)




3
AND:

1 . SMT. K.MANJULA
W/O SRINIVASA REDDY
AGE: 49 YEARS
R/AT MUTHANALLURU VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT

2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-562 100
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C);
SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
ND
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2 RESPONDENT TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL
PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.976/2016 ON 21.07.2017 BY
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1098/2020:

BETWEEN:

SMT.C. BHARATHI
W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT
OLD CHANDAPURA VILLAGE
BOMMASANDRA POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)


4
AND:

1 . SMT. SOWBHAGYA K.P.,
W/O RAVEENDRA REDDY
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT 340/1, LAKSHMAMMA
RATACHAPPA BUILDING
TCP LAYOUT, CHANDAPURA POST
OLD CHANDAPURA VILLAGE
ANEKAL HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 099

2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-562 100
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C.);
SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
ND
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2 RESPONDENT TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL
PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.2025/2016 ON 21.07.2017 BY
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.26/2020:

BETWEEN:

SMT.C. BHARATHI
W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT
OLD CHANDAPURA
BOMMASANDRA POST


5
ANEKAL TLAUK
BENGLAURU-560 099
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SMT.YASHODHAMMA
W/O GOPALA REDDY
AGE: 59 YEARS
R/AT MUTTANALLURU VILLAGE & POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125

2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-562 100
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C.);
SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
ND
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2 RESPONDENT TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL
PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1205/2015 ON 21.07.2017 BY
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.34/2020:

BETWEEN:

SMT.C. BHARATHI
W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS


6
R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT
OLD CHANDAPURA
BOMMASANDRA POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGLAURU-560 099
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SRI M.B.GOPALA REDDY
S/O BUDDA REDDY
AGE: 69 YEARS
R/AT MUTTANALLURU VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125

2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-562 100
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C.);
SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
ND
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2 RESPONDENT TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL
PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.05/2016 ON 21.07.2017 BY
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.







7
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3977/2019:

BETWEEN:

SMT.C. BHARATHI
W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT
OLD CHANDAPURA
BOMMASANDRA POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGLAURU-560 099
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . LOKESH REDDY N.,
S/O NARASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT No.237, RCR LAYOUT
YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE & POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-562 107

2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-562 100
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
ND
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2 RESPONDENT TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL


8
PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.26312/2015 ON 04.02.2017 BY
XIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.26313/2015 ON
04.02.2017 BY XIX ACMM AT BENGALURU IN CC.NO.28193/2015
DATED 11.04.2017 BY XIII ACMM AT BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.744/2015 ON 21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.976/2016 ON
21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.1815/2016 ON 21.07.2017 IN
C.C.NO.2025/2016 ON 21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.05/2016 ON
21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.1204/2015 ON 21.07.2017 IN
C.C.NO.1205/2015 ON 21.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.146/2016 ON
21.07.2017 BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT ANEKAL.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.62/2020:

BETWEEN:

SMT.C. BHARATHI
W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT 137, TCP LAYOUT
OLD CHANDAPURA
BOMMASANDRA POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1 . SMT. SOWBHAGYA K.P.,
W/O RAVEENDRA REDDY
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT 340/1, LAKSHMAMMA
RATACHAPPA BUILDING
TCP LAYOUT, OLD CHANDAPURA
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125






9
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-562 100
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C.);
SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
ND
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2 RESPONDENT TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL
PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1815/2016 ON 21.07.2017 BY
THE PRL. JMFC., AT ANEKAL.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.630/2020:

BETWEEN:

SMT.C. BHARATHI
W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT No.137, TCP LAYOUT
OLD CHANDAPURA VILLAGE AND POST
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE B.M.RAMASWAMY REDDY
AGE: 73 YEARS
R/AT BANAHALLI VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 102


10
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-562 100
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2
R1 IS SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
ND
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2 RESPONDENT TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL
PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.744/2015 ON 21.07.2017 BY
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.703/2020:

BETWEEN:

SMT.C. BHARATHI
W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT No.137, TCP LAYOUT
OLD CHANDAPURA
YELLAMMADEVI PRASANNA NILAYA
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TLAUK
BENGLAURU-560 099
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SRI. CHANDRA REDDY
S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY
AGE: 64 YEARS
R/AT MUTTANALLURU VILLAGE & POST


11
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125

2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-562 100
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1–(THROUGH V.C.);
SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
ND
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2 RESPONDENT TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL
PRISON, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1204/2015 ON 21.07.2017 BY
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.758/2020:

BETWEEN:

SMT.C. BHARATHI
W/O T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT No.137, TCP LAYOUT
OLD CHANDAPURA
BOMMASANDRA POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-560 099
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVA PRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1 . SMT. PARVATHI R.,
W/O GOPALA REDDY T.,
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT RAMADAGARA VILLAGE
MUTHANALLURU VILLAGE AND POST,ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 099


12
2 . CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU-562 100
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R2;
R-1 IS SERVD)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
ND
CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2 RESPONDENT TO RELEASE
THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH FROM THE CENTRAL PRISON,
BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.28193/2015 ON 11.04.2017 BY XIII ACMM
AT BENGALURU.

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.02.2021 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

These petitions are filed by the common accused invoking
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to direct the second
respondent to release the petitioner/accused, forthwith, from the
Central Prison, Bengaluru, in respect of the following cases in
which the petitioner herein convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the
NI Act’ for short) and undergoing substantive sentence and
default sentence. The details are:



13

14
2. The petitioner, who is the common accused in the
above cases. In the petitions, it is contended that consequent
upon the Judgment of conviction and sentence in all 10 cases
both substantive sentence and default sentence she has been
serving sentence in prison from 08.02.2017. Though, the
petitioner had made a representation on 22.11.2018 and
05.12.2018, the Government of Karnataka and Chief
Superintendent Central Prison, Bengaluru, that she has already
served the imprisonment term, despite of which the authorities
did not consider the request made by the accused/petitioner,
unless this Court interfere and make the sentence to run
concurrently instead of consecutively as contemplated under
Section 427 of Cr.P.C.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
his arguments vehemently contend that the petitioner has been
serving the sentence from 08.02.2017 and already served the
sentence more than 27 months till filing of the petitions. As per
the dictums of various judgments in all cases, approximately, in
11 cases, the petitioner bound to serve 60 months of sentence in
aggregately. Though the Trial Court has awarded sentences in


15
different cases but in all cases the offences are similar in nature,
except complainants are different parties but accused person is
same and more so several cheques are being issued in a single
transaction. Thus, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the
petitioner in all cases, by imposing sentences are to be run
concurrently instead of consecutively. The learned counsel
referring to Section 427 of Cr.P.C, vehemently contend that it
ought to have been ordered concurrently. The learned counsel
in his arguments also vehemently contend that the Trial Court
have committed an error in ordering the sentence consecutively.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of
his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Lal reported in AIR
2009 SC (Supp) 2836, wherein , the Apex Court held that,
Section 428 - sentences – concurrent running – several cheques
issued by accused in single transaction dishonoured – Accused
convicted and sentenced separately for each offence - Direction
that sentences would run concurrently would be Proper.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V.K. Bansal


16
v. State of Haryana and another reported in (2013) 7
Supreme Court Cases 211, wherein, the Apex Court held that,
while awarding sentence concurrent and the same not to be
exercised in a mechanical or pedantic manner – Cases involving
dishonour of cheques issued by borrower towards repayment of
a loan – Each one of loan transactions was a separate and
distinct transaction between complainant and borrowing
Company – Different cheques subsequently dishonoured on
presentation could be said to be arising out of a single loan
transaction – Concurrent running of sentence directed limited to
substantive sentence only.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Pal
v. Dayawati Besoya and another reported in (2016) 10
Supreme Court Cases 761, wherein, the Apex Court while
discussing Section 138 of the NI Act and Section 427 of Cr.P.C.
held that, power to direct concurrent running of sentences is
discretionary. Accused convicted for offence under Section 138
of the NI Act, in respect of two cases arising out of successive
transactions in a series between same parties and tried together


17
– Was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 10 months and fine
of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation in both cases – Considering
duration of custody of accused as evidenced by custody
certificate of Deputy Superintendent of Prison to that effect –
Substantive sentences of 10 months’ simple imprisonment
awarded to accused in both cases directed to run concurrently.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ammavasai
and another v. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur and others
reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3544, wherein, the Apex
Court discussed Section 427 of Cr.P.C. and also the offence
under Section 395 of IPC, held that, benefit of all the sentences
to run concurrently on the ground that occurrence in all cases
took place between 3 to 5 months – Offence found against each
of them in all cases was under Section 395 of IPC. – Appellants
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years in each case – Appellants
claiming benefit under Section 427 in order to avoid undergoing
of imprisonment for total period of 28 or 35 year in jail – Benefit
if allowed appellants would be out after serving sentence of 7
years awarded in one case – To meet ends of justice held,


18
appellants to undergo total period of 14 years of imprisonment in
respect of all convictions passed against them.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied
upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jodhpur in the case of Rajender s/o Satya Narain v. State
of Rajasthan in S.B.CRIMINAL MISC (PET) No.2883/2014,
referring to this Judgment, the learned counsel would contend
that similarly placed case, the Rajasthan High Court extended
the benefit in respect of different cases of cheque bounce cases
and held that 32 cases which have been referred would run
concurrently in respect of the substantive sentences. However,
the petitioner will have to serve default sentences as the
provisions of Section 427 of Cr.P.C, do not permit a direction for
concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences
awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. The
sentences, which the petitioner has been directed to undergo in
default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be affected by
this direction and if the petitioner has not paid the
fine/compensation as directed by the trial courts, the said
sentences would run consecutively.


19
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied
upon the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of
Vadiraja v. State by CPI, Brahmavar, Udupi District in
Criminal Petition No.6974/2015, D.D. Dated 23.11.2015,
wherein, this Court discussed Section 428 of Cr.P.C. and allowed
the petition in respect of the offences punishable under Sections
392 and 413 of IPC. The sentences shall run concurrently.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.1/complainant in most number of cases herein vehemently
contend that the petitioner herein is the accused before the Trial
Court in all the cases, is one and the same. The learned counsel
for the petitioner contends that no trial was taken place in other
cases and also not disputes the fact that the accused has
pleaded guilty. It is also not in dispute that in one case evidence
has been recorded. The learned counsel would submit that in the
cases on hand in some cases only directed to pay the fine
amount and in default of payment of fine she has to suffer the
default sentence. In some of the other cases, she was awarded
with substantive sentences and directed to pay the fine amount
and in default she has to undergo default sentence.


20
11. The learned counsel would submit that when the
complainants are different and the same cannot be termed as it
is a single transaction as held by the Apex Court. The
complainants are different and transactions are different and
cause of actions are also different. When such being the case,
there cannot be an order for concurrent sentences and it should
be consecutive only. It is also contended that the default
sentence is a continuous offence and the same cannot be a
concurrent sentence. The learned counsel would submit that
Section 427 of Cr.P.C, is not applicable and the petitioner herein
cheated more than Rs.3.5 Crores.

12. The learned Counsel for respondent
No.1/complainant in support of his contentions, he also relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Pal ’s case
(supra), the very same judgment referred by the petitioner’s
counsel also and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph
Nos.9, 10, 12 and 13, wherein, the Apex Court discussed the
Judgment in V.K. Bansal ’s case (supra), and the Apex Court has
observed that the Court has the power and discretion to issue a
direction that a subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with


21
the previous sentences, the very nature of the power so
conferred, predicates that the discretion, would have to be
exercised along judicial lines or not in a mechanical or pedantic
manner. It was underlined that there is no cut and dried formula
for the court to follow, in the exercise of such power and that the
justifiability or otherwise of the same, would depend on the
nature of the offence or offences committed and the attendant
facts and circumstances. It was however postulated, that the
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 complaints in
relation thereto might have been filed. The caveat as well was
that such a concession cannot be extended to transactions which
are distinctly different, separate and independent of each other
and amongst others where the parties are not same. The learned
counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the
imperative essentiality of a single transaction as the decisive
factor to enable the court to direct the subsequent sentence to
run concurrently.



22
13. The learned counsel referring to this Judgment would
vehemently contend that in the cases on hand, it is not a single
transaction, it is different and distinct and the said principle
cannot be extended to the transaction, which are distinctly
different and separate and independent of each other. The
learned counsel would contend that the very contention of the
petitioner before this Court is that it was a single transaction
cannot be accepted. The learned counsel would contend that it is
not only in respect of the chit transaction and the cheques are
issued in respect of the loan transactions taken place between
the petitioner and the complainants.

14. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for respondent No.2 in her arguments vehemently contend that
the Apex Court in V.K. Bansal ’s case (supra), held that, Court
should exercise its discretion judicially and not mechanically in
each case, having regard to nature of offence and particular fact
situation – No straitjacket approach can be laid down – However,
only substantive sentences can be directed to run concurrently
and sentences awarded in default of payment of
fine/compensation cannot be directed to run concurrently. The


23
Apex Court also discussed with regard to the single transaction
rule is concerned, where there was a single transaction
constituting offences, even if different complaints were filed in
relation thereto, sentences can be directed to run concurrently.
But, where the cheques are issued in respect of the different
transaction if it would constitute a separate and independent
transaction and sentence awarded to appellant-accused under
Section 138 of the NI Act cannot be directed to run concurrently.
The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court to
paragraph No.18, wherein, the Apex Court has discussed in
detail, which has been extracted below:
“18.
Applying the principle of single transaction
referred to above to the above fact situations we are of
the view that each one of the loan transactions/financial
arrangements was a separate and distinct transaction
between the complainant on the one hand and the
borrowing company/appellant on the other. If different
cheques which are subsequently dishonoured on
presentation, are issued by the borrowing company acting
through the appellant, the same could be said to be
arising out of a single loan transaction so as to justify a
direction for concurrent running of the sentences awarded
in relation to dishonour of cheques relevant to each such
transaction. That being so, the substantive sentence
awarded to the appellant in each case relevant to the


24
transactions with each company referred to above ought
to run concurrently. We, however, see no reason to
extend that concession to transactions in which the
borrowing company is different no matter the appellant
before us is the promoter/Director of the said other
companies also. Similarly, we see no reason to direct
running of the sentence concurrently in the case filed by
State Bank of Patiala against M/s Sabhyata Plastics and
M/s Rahul Plastics which transaction is also independent
of any loan or financial assistance between the State
Financial Corporation and the borrowing companies. We
make it clear that the direction regarding concurrent
running of sentence shall be limited to the substantive
sentence only. The sentence which the appellant has been
directed to undergo in default of payment of
fine/compensation shall not be affected by this direction.
We do so because the provisions of Section 427 CrPC do
not, in our opinion, permit a direction for the concurrent
running of the substantive sentences with sentences
awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation.”

15. In reply to the arguments of learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.2, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner would vehemently contend that all these
transactions are in respect of the single transaction in respect of
subscribing of chits and non payment of chit fund, cheques are
issued and she has been in custody for almost four years.


25
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under Section 427
of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also disputes the very contentions
of the respondents’ counsel that the transaction is not a single
transaction.

16. Having heard the arguments of the respective
counsel and also considering the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, it is clear that if it is single
transaction, then, the petitioner is entitled for the order to run
the sentence concurrently, if it is not a single transaction,
different and independent transaction, then, the petitioner is not
entitled for the benefit. The Apex Court in V.K. Bansal ’s case
(supra), made it clear that if the transactions are different there
cannot be any concurrent sentence and further observed in the
Judgment that only substantive sentences can be directed to run
concurrently and sentences awarded in default of payment of
fine, compensation cannot be directed to run concurrently. Now
this Court has to examine whether all the transactions are
pertaining to a single transaction as contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and also considered the contention of
the respondents that the transaction is different transaction.


26
The Apex Court also in the recent Judgment in Shyam Pal ’s
case (supra), discussed in paragraph No.13, the said benefit
cannot be extended to transactions which are distinctly different,
separate and independent of each other and amongst others. In
the case on hand, it has to be noted that the complainants are
different. No doubt, the offences invoked against the petitioner
herein under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is also not in dispute
that the judgments are passed on different dates, but in 7 cases,
the judgments are passed by the very same judge and the
judgments are delivered on 21.07.2017. Having perused the
details of the cases also the fine amount imposed also different
in three cases only default sentence has been awarded in other
cases sentence of six months as well as directed to pay the fine
amount in default six months sentence also imposed. Hence, it
is clear that in the cases on hand, there is a substantive
sentence and also a default sentence against the petitioner
herein.

17. In view of the principles laid down in the judgments
referred supra, it is clear that only the substantive sentences can
be made as concurrent if it is the transaction is single


27
transaction. If it is the transaction is different transaction, the
said concession cannot be given to the petitioner. Hence, I would
like to make it clear that the default sentences cannot be made
as concurrent and the same should run consecutively in respect
of the substantive sentence is concerned, this Court has to look
into each case material before the Court whether the
transactions are arising out of same transaction or different
transaction.

18. In respect of Crl.P.No.705/2020, the complainant
made an allegation that the petitioner herein requested the
complainant to become the subscriber of the chit and on request
of the accused, the complainant has subscribed two chits. One
chit for Rs.5,00,000/- and another for Rs.10,00,000/- on
monthly installment of Rs.12,500/- each. The other persons are
also subscribers to the said chit. The accused has not made the
payment and ultimately executed a settlement deed on
21.02.2015 and in terms of the settlement deed, cheque was
issued and the same was dishonoured.

19. In respect of Crl.P.No.1062/2020, wherein, the
complainant in the complaint made an allegation that the


28
complainant agreed to accommodate hand loan to the accused
and lent hand loan of Rs.7 Lakhs to the accused i.e., in the
month of second week of May 2015. The cheque was issued and
the same was dishonoured.

20. In respect of Crl.P.No.1098/2020, the accused has
approached the complainant to pay a loan of Rs.35 Lakhs to
discharge the hand loan borrowed from the third parties and
th
accordingly in the 4 week of May 2014, made the payment and
borrowed the hand loan of Rs.35 Lakhs and the same was not
repaid. Hence, cheques were issued and the same were
dishonoured.

21. In respect of Crl.P.No.26/2020, the transaction
between the parties as per the complaint, the complainant
borrowed a hand loan of Rs.14 Lakhs and the amount has not
been paid. Hence, the cheques were issued and the same were
dishonoured.

22. In respect of Crl.P.No.34/2020, wherein, the
complainant borrowed a hand loan of Rs.15 Lakhs and in default


29
of payment of money, cheques were issued and the same were
dishonoured.

23. In respect of Crl.P.No.3977/2019, the complainant
has subscribed two chits. One chit for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
and another for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on monthly installment
of Rs.12,500/- each and not made the payment. Hence, the
cheques were issued and the same were dishonoured.

24. In respect of Crl.P.No.62/2020, the complainant
borrowed a hand loan of Rs.30 Lakhs and not made the
payment. Hence, a cheque was issued and the same was
dishonoured.

25. In Crl.P.No.630/2020, the complainant borrowed a
hand loan of Rs.5.5 Lakhs. Payment was not made and a cheque
was issued and the same was dishonoured.

26. In Crl.P.No.703/2020, the complainant borrowed a
hand loan of Rs.18 Lakhs and payment was not made. The
cheques were issued and the same were also dishonoured.



30
27. In Crl.P.No.758/2020, the complainant has
subscribed two chits. One chit for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and
another for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on monthly installment of
Rs.12,500/- each. Due to non-payment of chit amount, cheque
was issued and the same was also dishonoured.

28. Having perused the factual aspects of each case, it is
emerged that it is not a single transaction. In seven cases, there
were loan transactions between the parties and the transactions
are of the years 2014 and 2015 and in other cases the
complainants are the subscribers of two chits and those two chit
transactions are also the different transactions. When such being
the case, when the transactions are different, the question of
passing an order invoking Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C, the sentence
shall run concurrently with the previous sentences does not
arise.

29. In the judgment of the Apex Court in V.K. Bansal ’s
case (supra), wherein, it was held that though it is manifest from
Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C, that the Court has the power and
discretion to issue a direction that a subsequent sentence shall
run concurrently with the previous sentences, the very nature of


31
the power so conferred, predicates that the discretion, would
have to be exercised along judicial lines or not in a mechanical
or pedantic manner.

30. I have already pointed out that the record discloses
that these are the cases arising out of different transactions and
also different complainants and even though the accused is one
and the same. If the transactions are the single transaction, then
only, the Court can invoke Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. to extend
the benefit. The transactions are different and cause of actions
are different and complainants are different. Under the
circumstances, there cannot be an order even for substantive
sentences to run concurrently. In the cases on hand, it has to be
noted that apart from substantive sentences, default sentences
are also awarded. It is settled law that in case of default
sentences, there cannot be an order of concurrent sentences.

31. In seven cases, substantive sentences are awarded
along with default sentence. In case of non-payment of
fine/compensation, the Judgments are also on different dates. It
is settled law that there was no cut and dried formula for the
court to follow, in the exercise of such power and that the


32
justifiability or otherwise of the same, would depend on the
nature of the offence or offences committed and the attendant
facts and circumstances. The 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 complaints in relation thereto might have been filed.
The concession cannot be extended to transactions which are
distinctly different, separate and independent of each other and
amongst others where the parties are not the same.

32. In the cases on hand, the accused is common, the
complainants are different, transactions are different and cause
of actions are also different, it is not in respect of single
transaction, it is in respect of two chit transactions and also
seven different loan transactions. Hence, it is not a fit case to
extend the benefit under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. as contended
by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also important to
note that the fine of Rs.3,11,10,000/- was imposed apart from
imprisonment and default sentence for non-payment in respect
of all the 10 cases. Hence, the petitioner also cannot contend
that she may be extended the benefit under Section 427 of


33
Cr.P.C. as taking into note of the facts and circumstances of the
case for having owed liability to such an extent.

33. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petitions are dismissed.



Sd/-
JUDGE


cp*