https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353759 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. en-us Thu, 04 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:34:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353759 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353759