GANAPATHI AND ORS. Vs. WIPRO LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the partners of M/s. S.N. Distributors. In connection with the business of the said Firm, they had issued cheques in favour of respondent No.1. The cheques on presentation were dishonoured by the bank concerned, for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, respondent No.1 instituted complaints under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioners and the partnership firm. Complaints were tried by the XIV ACMM, Bengaluru, culminating in conviction of the petitioners and imposition of sentences of imprisonment, which ranges between 3 months to one year, besides imposition of different amounts of fine in each case and default sentence, in the event of non payment of amount awarded, in each of the case. The petitioners are in judicial custody from 19.06.2013. This petition was filed under S.482 of Cr.P.C., contending that instead of sentences awarded running consecutively, they ought to run concurrently.

(2.) Sri R.V. Shivananda Reddy, learned advocate, contended that the Magistrate having found the petitioners guilty and imposed sentence of imprisonment, has committed error in not directing running of the sentences concurrently. He submitted that the power vested by virtue of S.427 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') has not been exercised. Reliance in support was placed on the decision in BHIMASHANKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2004 2 KarLJ 25.

(3.) Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, learned HCGP, on the other hand contended that the cheque transactions being not the same and nine criminal complaints having been separately filed and tried, these petitioners were found guilty and thus, the offence being not one and the same, the Magistrate is justified in not exercising the discretion under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. He submitted that the transaction being not one and different cheques issued having bounced on different dates and the cause of action for each of the complaint being distinct and separate and thus, separate complaints having been filed, cases were separately tried and decided. He submitted that in the said background, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.