AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as the "Act") as recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed in appeal by the District and Sessions Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi. The High Court while maintaining the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for 10 months and fine of Rs. 6,50,000/- as compensation as awarded by the Trial Court, however has reduced the default sentence from six months simple imprisonment to that of three months. The order dated 22.02.2016 rendered by the High Court declining the prayer for modification of the above decision by directing the release of the appellant, he having already served the sentence in all being in custody from 25.02.2015 has been assailed in the present appeals as well. (2) We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....responded, complaints were filed. (5) As eventually the arguments in the present appeals have centered around the sentence alone, we do not wish to burden the present rendering with avoidable facts. (6) The Trial Court after a full dress adjudication, in the two proceedings, returned a finding that the signatures on the cheques were not disputed by the appellant and indeed were issued in discharge of legally recoverable debts subsisting against him and acting on the presumption available under Section 139 of the Act convicted him of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Consequently, he was awarded simple imprisonment for 10 months and fine of Rs. 6,50,000/- as compensation in both the cases. In case of default of payment of compe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant has urged that as both the complaints filed by the respondents have arisen out of successive transactions in a series between the same parties and had been tried together on the basis of same set of evidence, the sentences awarded ought to run concurrently, the High Court had failed to appreciate the same. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 25.02.2015 and if the two substantive sentences are construed to run concurrently, he has served not only the substantive sentences but also the sentence in default of fine as on date. That the appellant comes from a poor financial background, as well as is the sole bread earner of the family and that if the two sentences are to run consecutively, he would suffer grave....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above under Section 138 of the Act is serving out the sentences awarded and that the period of his custody is as hereunder: (1) 25.02.2015 to 13.12.2015 (As convict in CC No.430/11) (2) 14.12.2015 till date i.e. 06.05.2016 (As convict in CC No.407/11) That meanwhile the appellant had been on interim bail for 10 days from 05.10.2015 to 14.10.2015 as granted by the High Court has also been stated. (12) The law on the orientation of two sentences awarded to an offender following his conviction successively, to define the cumulative duration thereof is envisaged in Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Code") in following terms: "427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. - (1) When....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r pedantic manner. It was underlined that there is no cut and dried formula for the Court to follow, in the exercise of such power and that the justifiability or otherwise of the same, would depend on the nature of the offence or offences committed and the attendant facts and circumstances. It was however postulated, that the legal position favours the exercise of the discretion to the benefit of the prisoners in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction, no matter even if different complaints in relation thereto might have been filed. The caveat as well was that such a concession cannot be extended to transactions which are distinctly different, separate and independent of each other and amongst others where the parties ....