Sentences Can Be Made Concurrent Only If Offences Arise Out Of A Single Transaction : Karnataka High Court

A single bench of Justice H P Sandesh while dismissing a petition said "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."

Petitioner submissions:

Petitioner C Bharati had approached the court seeking to issue directions to the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, to release her forthwith, from the Prison, in respect of the following cases in which the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and undergoing substantive sentence and default sentence.

It was submitted 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 sentences in all cases, the petitioner is bound to serve 60 months of sentence in aggregately. Though the Trial Court has awarded sentences in 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 to be run concurrently instead of consecutively.

Reliance was placed on the following Supreme court judgments: State of Punjab v. Madan Lal reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2836. Supreme Court order in the case of V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and another reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211. Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya and another reported in (2016) 10. Ammavasai and another v. Inspector of Police, Valliyanur and others reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3544.

 Complainant opposed the plea:

It was contended that when the complainants are different and the same cannot be termed as 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.

Prison department opposed the plea:

The High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 submitted 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.

Court Findings:

The bench said "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."

On going through the judgments cited the court observed "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 transaction. If the transaction is different, the said concession cannot be given to the petitioner."

It then went through each of the cases for which the petitioner is convicted and opined that "Having perused the factual aspects of each case, it has 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."

It added "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."

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

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.