Concurrent sentencing in cheque dishonour cases may extend to substantive imprisonment, but not to default sentences for non-payment.

In multiple cheque-dishonour prosecutions, the High Court recognised that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may be used to direct concurrent running of substantive sentences under Section 427 CrPC, depending on the facts, the nature and number of cases, and the interests of criminal justice. Applying that discretion, it found no compelling reason to insist on consecutive operation of all substantive sentences in the 14 cases. The benefit of concurrency was confined to substantive imprisonment and did not extend to default sentences imposed for non-payment of fine or compensation, which would continue to operate consecutively.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court could direct that substantive sentences awarded in multiple convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits concurrent running of a subsequent sentence with an earlier sentence where the Court so directs. The discretion is to be exercised on the facts of the case, keeping in view the nature of offences, the number of cases, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the interests of criminal justice. The Court found no compelling reason to require consecutive operation of all substantive sentences in the 14 cheque dishonour cases. It further held that the benefit of concurrency, in line with the governing precedent, would extend only to substantive sentences and not to default sentences imposed for non-payment of fine or compensation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to have the substantive sentences in the 14 cases run concurrently, but the default sentences remained unaffected and would continue to operate consecutively.

---