G.SARAVANAN Vs. J.SANKARANARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) The petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in S. T. C No. 100 of 2015 and S. T. C No. 106 of 2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court, Theni. Thiru. J. Sankaranarayanan was the complainant in S. T. C. No. 100 of 2015. Thiru. B. Suruliraj was the complainant in S. T. C. No. 106 of 2015. The petitioner who was accused in both the cases was acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate after a full-fledged trial on 02. 02. 2016. Aggrieved by the same, the respective complainants filed Criminal Appeals in Crl. A No. 39 of 2016 and Crl. A. No. 40 of 2016 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam. The learned appellate Judge, by judgment dated 27. 02. 2017, set aside the orders passed by the trial court and allowed both the appeals. The petitioner herein was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment in each case and levied with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Default sentence of three months Simple Imprisonment was also imposed. The petitioner thereupon filed Crl. R. C No. 769 of 2017 and Crl. R. C. (MD)No. 770 of 2017 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Both the revision cases were dismissed on 10. 10. 2018 and the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge were confirmed. The trial Court was directed to secure the revision petitioner and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Pursuant to the aforesaid outcome, the petitioner was taken to custody on 13. 12. 2018.

(3.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed for issuing a direction that the sentence passed in Crl. A. No. 39 of 2016, dated 27. 02. 2017 and confirmed in Crl. R. C(MD)No. 769 of 2017 dated 10. 10. 2018 shall run concurrently along with the sentence passed in the other case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a host of decisions. He first drew my attention to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal (2009) 5 SCC 238). In the said case, the accused was found guilty in three cases for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He filed an application under Section 482 r/w 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code for directing that the sentences in all the three cases should run concurrently. It was allowed. The same was put to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said appeal as devoid of merits.