Himachal Pradesh HC Dismisses Plea for Concurrent Sentences in Dual Cheque Bounce Convictions [Read Order]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected a plea seeking concurrent running of sentences in two cheque bounce cases by observing that the judgements in both cases were independent and arose out of separate transactions.

In this case, Shiva Packages and another petitioner, both of whom had been convicted in separate proceedings arising from cheque dishonour. Coming to the facts of the case, two complaints were filed against the petitioners by the same complainant. One was Complaint No. 181/3 of 2016, and the other was Complaint No. 62/3 of 2015. In both cases, the Judicial Magistrate First Class had convicted the petitioners and directed them to pay compensation of Rs. 1,16,050 and Rs. 81,000, respectively. It is to be noted that if they defaulted on the payment, in the order, it was stated that they have to undergo simple imprisonment.

In default of payment, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months in each case.

The petitioners contended that both cases were linked and should be treated as arising from the same transaction. It was submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner was a disabled person and that he had served the sentence awarded to him in one complaint and is behind bars in another. It further submitted that he was unable to pay due to his physical impairment. This Court has the authority to direct the concurrent running of the sentence.

The counsel on behalf of the respondent State contended that both convictions stemmed from different complaints and different transactions. Since the imprisonment was not a substantive sentence but was imposed only in default of payment of compensation, it was not open to the Court to order concurrency. It was argued that such a direction would go against settled legal principles.

The High Court noted that the judgements in both cases were independent and arose out of separate transactions. The Court referred to a long line of precedent, including decisions of the Supreme Court and Division Benches, holding that concurrency of sentences is permissible only where the offences arise out of a single transaction.

The bench relied on the case of Sushil Kumar @ Shashi versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 (1) Shimla Law Cases 214, in which the division bench of the same high court had held that when a person was convicted for the commission of two offences in separate trials in respect of different transactions, the court cannot pass a direction that sentences should run concurrently.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Neera Yadav v. CBI, (2017) 8 SCC 757: (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 515: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 858, in which the apex court held that when a person has been convicted of the commission of the different offences committed at different times, the sentence cannot be ordered to run concurrently.

A single bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that in the present case, both instances of default were separate, and the consequences of non-payment of compensation were individually determined. Since the sentence imposed was not substantive but conditional upon non-payment, Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with set-off of sentences, did not apply.

The court dismissed the petition.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates