Concurrent sentencing in cheque dishonour cases requires a single transaction; separate loans support consecutive terms.

Sentences for dishonour of cheques arising from two separate loan agreements were treated as consecutive because the offences did not form a single transaction. The court noted that the discretion to direct concurrent sentences must be exercised judicially with regard to the nature of the offence and surrounding facts. Here, the agreements were distinct, the cheques related to different amounts, and the instruments were presented on different dates. The principle allowing concurrent running of sentences in cases of a single transaction was therefore inapplicable, and the sentences were held to run consecutively.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sentences imposed for dishonour of cheques arising from two loan agreements between the parties ought to run concurrently or consecutively.

Analysis: The Court noted that the power to direct concurrent running of sentences must be exercised judicially and depends on the nature of the offence and the surrounding facts. On the facts, the two loan agreements were separate and distinct, involved different amounts, different cheques and different dates of presentation. The dishonour complaints therefore did not arise from a single transaction. The principle permitting concurrent sentences in cases of a single transaction was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The sentences were held not to run concurrently and were to run consecutively.

---