LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-155

PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. SUNIL KUMAR VAID

Decided On August 26, 2011
PANKAJ KUMAR Appellant
V/S
SUNIL KUMAR VAID Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise out of a common impugned judgment passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge in two criminal appeals arising out of complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (in short N.I. Act) relating to the dishonor of cheques issued in favour of the complainants Gopal Dass Vaid (since deceased) and his son Sunil Kumar Vaid in course of the same transaction.

(2.) At the outset it may be noted that the learned counsel for the Petitioner after some arguments confined her arguments only to the extent that despite the cheques were issued in the course of the same transaction and were dishonoured, the Learned Trial Court and Learned Appellant Court failed to direct that the sentences should run concurrently. The Petitioner has undergone almost the entire sentence in one case and it is thus prayed that the benefit of Section 427 IPC be granted to the Petitioner and the sentences be directed to run concurrently. Reliance in this regard is placed on Shersingh Vs. State of M.P., 1989 CrLJ 632, V. Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1987 CrLJ 1621, Mani and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala, 1983 CrLJ 1262.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that no case for directing the sentences to run concurrently is made out as the cheques in question were distinct and thus distinct offences were committed. According to him, the Petitioner is liable to undergo the sentence consecutively and not concurrently. Reliance is placed on Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala and another, 2008 CrLJ 2297, Parthasarthy Vs. K.G. Sarangataran and Ors( Crl.M.C. 3418/2007 decided by the High Court of Kerala on 15 th November, 2007) and O.J. Thomas v. M.C. Bavu & another (Crl.M.C. No.2937/2008 decided by the Kerala High Court on 4 th August, 2008).