BHIM SINGH Vs. JITENDER JHANGHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CRM-M-383 of 2013 and CRM-M- 384 of 2013 titled Bhim Singh Vs. Jitender Jahanghu. Bhim Singh petitioner has filed the aforesaid petitions assailing judgments dated 06.11.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon in Criminal Appeal No.7 & 8 of 2012 respectively whereby his conviction and sentence for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 have been upheld. As per allegations, the petitioner issued two cheques bearing No.696731 for a sum of Rs. 11,36,250.00 and cheque No.696732 of Rs. 12,50,000.00 drawn at Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Dhankot Branch, Gurgaon in discharge of his legal liability to refund an amount of Rs. 23,86,250.00 received by the accused towards sale consideration of agriculture land agreed to be sold to the complainant (respondent herein). The cheques got dishonoured on presentation to the bank with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer". The petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount despite receipt of legal notice dated 16.05.2007. Two separate complaints were preferred by respondent Jitender Jahanghu in respect of each of the aforesaid cheques.

(2.) The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court in both the cases. His conviction and sentence was affirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide aforesaid impugned judgments. Counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that there is no substantial ground to assail the findings of the courts below in view of limited scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He has submitted that the petitioner may be heard on the quantum of sentence as well as qua his prayer for concurrent running of sentences under Sec. 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") in view of his application Criminal Miscellaneous No.41275 of 2013. Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is in custody since the dismissal of his appeals on 06.11.2012. It is further submitted that as the two cheques in dispute were issued in discharge of a liability arising out of the same transaction i.e. agreement to sell, the prayer of the petitioner for concurrent running of substantive sentences in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 427 of the Code may be allowed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a latest judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India in V.K.Bansal Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2013(3) R.C.R.(Criminal), 983.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent has nothing to submit to controvert the prayer of the petitioner that the liability has arisen out of a single transaction.