Concurrent sentencing in connected cheque dishonour convictions upheld with clarifications on pre-sentence detention set-off

Concurrent sentencing was considered appropriate for multiple convictions under the Negotiable Instruments Act where the offences arose from the same transaction and were factually connected. The Court also clarified that set-off under Section 428 CrPC applies to pre-sentence detention undergone in connection with the relevant case, and does not require custody to have been exclusive to that case. On that reasoning, directing connected sentences to run concurrently was treated as consistent with the statutory sentencing framework, and the High Court's order granting concurrent running of sentences was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sentences imposed on the respondent for multiple convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the High Court was right in granting that relief.

Analysis: The relief was examined in the light of the principle that concurrent sentences may be proper where multiple offences arise out of the same transaction and the facts are substantially connected. The Court also considered the scope of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for set-off of pre-sentence detention. It held that the words "of the same case" in Section 428 refer to the pre-sentence detention undergone in connection with the relevant case and do not require that the accused have been in custody exclusively for that case. The Court further noted that where several sentences are imposed in connected matters, directing them to run concurrently is consistent with the statutory approach to sentencing.

Conclusion: The High Court's direction that the sentences should run concurrently was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

---