https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156287 Concurrent sentencing was considered appropriate for multiple convictions under the Negotiable Instruments Act where the offences arose from the same transaction and were factually connected. The Court also clarified that set-off under Section 428 CrPC applies to pre-sentence detention undergone in connection with the relevant case, and does not require custody to have been exclusive to that case. On that reasoning, directing connected sentences to run concurrently was treated as consistent with the statutory sentencing framework, and the High Court's order granting concurrent running of sentences was upheld. en-us Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2020 10:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156287 Concurrent sentencing was considered appropriate for multiple convictions under the Negotiable Instruments Act where the offences arose from the same transaction and were factually connected. The Court also clarified that set-off under Section 428 CrPC applies to pre-sentence detention undergone in connection with the relevant case, and does not require custody to have been exclusive to that case. On that reasoning, directing connected sentences to run concurrently was treated as consistent with the statutory sentencing framework, and the High Court's order granting concurrent running of sentences was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156287