Concurrent sentencing in cheque-bounce cases allowed for substantive terms, but default sentences must still run consecutively.

Section 427 CrPC permits a court to direct that subsequent substantive sentences run concurrently, and Section 482 CrPC may be invoked to correct non-exercise of that discretion where necessary to prevent injustice. In multiple Section 138 NI Act convictions arising from similar transactions, the Court found no compelling reason to insist on consecutive substantive sentences and directed them to run concurrently in the interests of justice. The Court also clarified that default sentences for non-payment of fine or compensation cannot be made concurrent with substantive sentences and must run consecutively.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in multiple convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the substantive sentences could be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as invoked through Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether such direction could extend to default sentences.

Analysis: The petitioner had been convicted in several cheque-bounce cases arising from similar transactions and was serving successive sentences. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that a subsequent sentence ordinarily runs consecutively, but the court retains discretion to direct concurrency. The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be exercised to prevent injustice where the discretionary power under Section 427 has not been properly exercised. The Court found no compelling reason to keep all the substantive sentences consecutive, particularly in view of the nature of the offences, the similarity of the complaints, the length of imprisonment already undergone, and the need to meet the ends of justice. However, the law does not permit concurrency of default sentences with substantive sentences.

Conclusion: The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently, but the default sentences for non-payment of fine or compensation were left to run consecutively. The petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.

---