K. PADAMAJA RANI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anand Padmanabhan R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) The counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner is not in reference to her conviction but on account of consecutive sentence ordered for the four cases against her, under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The counsel places reliance on V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 211 to point out that for a single transaction, the Court should have ordered for concurrent running of sentence instead of consecutive sentence, as has happened in this case.

(3.) We have perused the ratio in the aforesaid judgment and find that only when the conviction arise out of the single transaction, concurrent sentence would be merited. But present are the cases where there were several transactions over a period of time pertaining to supply of raw material to the petitioner for which the cheques tendered towards payment, were dishonoured. Accordingly, we find that the petitioner can have no benefit out of the ratio in V.K. Bansal (supra).