Concurrent sentencing in cheque-dishonour cases may apply where all convictions stem from one transaction and liability.

Where multiple cheque-dishonour convictions arise from one transaction and one liability, the substantive custodial sentence may be directed to run concurrently because separate complaints do not, by themselves, create distinct transactions for sentencing. The note also states that default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation or fine is governed by its own statutory limits and cannot be treated in the same way as substantive imprisonment; on that footing, the default term was considered excessive and reduced. The convictions were maintained, but the sentencing structure was modified by making the substantive sentence concurrent and shortening the default imprisonment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the substantive sentences imposed in eighteen cheque-dishonour convictions arising from the same transaction ought to run concurrently; (ii) whether the default sentences attached to the compensation/fine could be sustained in the manner ordered by the courts below.

Issue (i): whether the substantive sentences imposed in eighteen cheque-dishonour convictions arising from the same transaction ought to run concurrently.

Analysis: The cheques were issued towards one outstanding liability arising from a single commercial transaction, and the dishonour complaints all stemmed from that common cause. In such circumstances, the principle governing concurrent sentences was applied, and consecutive substantive sentences were found inappropriate. The governing rule was that where offences arise from the same transaction, substantive imprisonment may be directed to run concurrently, while the existence of multiple complaints by itself does not convert the conduct into distinct transactions for sentencing purposes.

Conclusion: The substantive sentence of one year was to run concurrently in all the connected complaints and not consecutively.

Issue (ii): whether the default sentences attached to the compensation/fine could be sustained in the manner ordered by the courts below.

Analysis: The courts below had imposed six months' simple imprisonment in default of payment in each case. The statutory limit under the sentencing provision applicable to default imprisonment was examined, along with the settled position that concurrency may be directed for substantive imprisonment but not for default imprisonment. The default term also could not exceed the permissible fraction of the substantive sentence. On that footing, the six-month default term in each complaint was found excessive, and reduction was warranted.

Conclusion: The default sentence was reduced to three months in each complaint, to operate upon default of payment of compensation.

Final Conclusion: The convictions under the cheque-dishonour law were maintained, but the sentence was modified by directing concurrent running of the substantive imprisonment and reducing the default imprisonment attached to non-payment of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple cheque-dishonour convictions arise from one transaction and one liability, substantive sentences may run concurrently, but default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation remains governed by its own statutory limits and cannot be made concurrent in the same manner as substantive imprisonment.

---