Cheque bounce case -- Concurrent sentences can be awarded in case of single transaction as a rule of thumb, but the same may not apply, if the transactions relating to the offences are different and the facts constituting to offences are also different -- If the accused is habitual of committing acts repeatedly and is found guilty on various counts and is found to be a menace to the society, then the term of consecutive sentences should be given as per the ratio of K. Prabhakaran's case 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 667.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Conviction in cheque bounce case -– There are numerous complaints of different complainants in respect of different cheques issued from different accounts of different Banks -- Though the complaints were decided by the same Court vide judgment and order of the even date, but the same cannot be treated to be of single transaction -- Involvement in numerous complaints is indicative of the fact the he is habitual offender – Held, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of running of sentences concurrently in terms of Section 427 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Conviction of accused -- Discretion to make the sentences to run concurrently can be exercised by the trial Court or by the lower Appellate Court or by the revisional Court at the time of exercising revisional jurisdiction -- It will not be open for a person to seek such discretion by moving an application under Sections 427 and 482 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Cheque bounce case -- All the cheques have been given in the same transaction and the parties are the same, therefore, applications praying for concurrence of sentence in all the cases allowed -- Sentences in all the cases ordered to run concurrently -- However, the sentence of payment of compensation and in default thereof, in each case, is upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Two complaints by different complainants u/s 138 of NI Act – In both case one year sentence besides fine was passed –Sentence ordered to be run concurrently -- However, the fine imposed by the trial Court and its default clause are maintained in both the cases.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Basic thumb rule is that concurrent sentences are to be awarded in a case of single transaction -- It is only in those circumstances when different transactions relating to offences are involved, sentences may not be allowed to run concurrently – Held, there is only one transaction i.e. storage of paddy and misappropriation thereof -- Prosecution has invoked two different remedies available with it i.e. registration of FIR u/s 420/406 IPC and to invoke proceedings in complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Sentence in complaint u/s 138 NI Act is ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in FIR case. Jang Singh’s case 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 323 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Conviction in three complaints u/s 138 of N.I.Act -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 – Sentence qua imprisonment in two complaints filed by one complainant against the petitioner can be ordered to run concurrently -- Sentence in the complaint filed by other complainant forms a different transaction and the sentence qua imprisonment in the said case cannot be held to run concurrently – Concurrent running of sentence in two complaints shall be limited to the sentence qua imprisonment only and sentence which the petitioner has to undergo in default of payment of fine, shall not be effected by this direction and shall also not run concurrently.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Conviction in two complaints u/s 138 of N.I.Act -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 –Accused convicted in two separate complaints for 1 year R.I. in each case – Both the complaints were decided by same Ld. C.J.M. on same day – Both the revision petitions are dismissed, but the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2014