TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aside the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2016 passed by District & Session Judge (West), Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 54451/2016 & 54450/2016 and impugned judgments dated 06.05.2016 and order on sentence dated 20.05.2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Complaint No. 3951/1/11 & 3952/1/11 registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881(hereinafter referred as 'NI' Act). 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the complaint was lodged by Respondent No. 2 who alleged that a friendly loan amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- was advanced to the petitioner in two installments in the month of May and August 2009 and in return the petitioner issued six post dated cheques, out of which four cheques were dishonoured....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent and therefore the sentences ought to have been ordered to run concurrently. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned APP for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the transactions in the present case were not parallel to each other and even the terms and conditions of the transactions were different. Hence, the sentence awarded should not run concurrently. 5. The submissions made by the both the parties have been considered and records perused. 6. After perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, the main issue which require adjudication in the present case is whether the sentence awarded by the Trial Court should concurrently or consecutively. In V.K.Bansal vs State Of Haryana & Ors. reported in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at two loan agreements were entered into by the parties and cheques were issued under the signature of the petitioner to the respondent no.2, in respect to the loan amount. The two separate loan agreements indicated the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 and Rs. 4,00,000/- respectively, and both bearing the signatures of the petitioner. Four post dated cheques bearing different numbers, for different amounts and containing different dates for presentation to the banks, were issued by the petitioner to the respondent no.2. The said cheques were dishonoured when presented to the respective banks for encashment. It is perused that each of the loan agreement was a separate, distinct transaction between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 and different c....