TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the substantive sentences imposed in multiple cheque dishonour cases arising out of closely connected transactions could be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether, in revisional jurisdiction, the order awarding compensation could be modified to provide a default sentence for non-payment.
Issue (i): Whether the substantive sentences imposed in multiple cheque dishonour cases arising out of closely connected transactions could be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The discretionary power under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised on judicial principles having regard to the nature of the offences, the surrounding circumstances, and whether the cases arise from a single transaction. The connected provisions relating to joinder and trial of offences reflect a legislative policy against unnecessary multiple trials and multiple punishments where the acts are interlinked. The complaints here arose from cheques issued in close succession against a consolidated liability, were tried on the same set of evidence, and were adjudicated in the same manner by the courts below. On those facts, the matters were treated as forming part of one transaction rather than distinct and independent liabilities.
Conclusion: The substantive sentences in the remaining cheque dishonour cases were directed to run concurrently, in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether, in revisional jurisdiction, the order awarding compensation could be modified to provide a default sentence for non-payment.
Analysis: Section 357(3) and Section 357(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permit compensation to be awarded even where fine is not part of the sentence, and the revisional court may modify the order to secure its enforceability. A compensation order without a default mechanism may be ineffective, and the court may add a default sentence consistent with the statutory limits governing punishment. The default term was therefore fixed with reference to the maximum punishment for the substantive offence and was made consecutive to the substantive sentence.
Conclusion: The compensation order was modified to include a default sentence for non-payment, against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded only to the extent that the remaining substantive sentences were ordered to run together, while the compensation direction was strengthened by adding an enforceable default term; the petition concerning the already fully served sentence was rendered infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple cheque dishonour prosecutions are shown to arise from one consolidated transaction and the evidence and circumstances indicate interconnected liability, concurrent running of substantive sentences may be directed under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and compensation under Section 357(3) may be supplemented by a default sentence in revisional jurisdiction to ensure effective enforcement.
TaxTMI 
