TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders concurrent sentences, consecutive imprisonment for default, right to recover compensation post-sentence</h1> <h3>Yogesh Kumar Versus State Of Punjab And Another</h3> Yogesh Kumar Versus State Of Punjab And Another - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the sentences should be ordered to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the petitioner-accused is prosecuted for issuing four different cheques in discharge of his liability, leading to four independent complaints for cheque dishonour.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Concurrent Running of Sentences Under Section 427 Cr.P.C.:The primary issue for consideration was whether the sentences for the petitioner-accused, who issued four cheques resulting in four independent complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, should run concurrently under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. The Court examined the facts of each case, noting that the cheques were issued in close succession and were part of a single consolidated liability of Rs. 34 lakhs. The petitioner argued that the cheques, issued in close proximity, should be seen as part of one single transaction, thus justifying concurrent running of sentences.Precedent Judgments on Concurrent Running of Sentences:The Court referred to several judgments, including 'V.K. Bansal versus State of Haryana and another' and 'Nagpal Traders versus Davinder Singh,' to ascertain the principles governing concurrent sentences. It emphasized that the discretion to order concurrent sentences should be based on the nature of the offences and the facts of the case. The Court noted that if multiple offences arise from a single transaction, concurrent sentences are generally favored to benefit the prisoner.Determining Single Transaction:The Court examined whether the offences constituted a single transaction by considering factors such as the proximity of time and place, unity of purpose, continuity of action, and whether the offences were intertwined. It concluded that the offences in question formed part of a single transaction due to the close proximity of the cheque issuance dates, the same parties being involved, and the same evidence being used to establish liability.Sentencing and Default Sentence:The Court noted that while the trial court imposed a sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment for each offence, no fine or default sentence was imposed. The appellate court directed compensation equivalent to the cheque amounts but did not impose a default sentence for non-payment. The Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, modified the order to include a default sentence of six months of simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of compensation, ensuring that the default sentence runs consecutively and not concurrently with the substantive sentence.Conclusion:The Court ordered that the sentences in the remaining three petitions (CRR Nos. 3406-2019, 3411-2019, and 3415-2019) run concurrently. It also directed that in case of default in payment of compensation, the petitioner-accused would undergo a default sentence of six months of simple imprisonment, which would run consecutively. The respondent-complainant retains the right to recover the compensation despite the petitioner undergoing the default sentence. The petition in CRR No. 3403-2019 was dismissed as infructuous since the petitioner had already completed the sentence in that case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
