Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, July 2
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that sentences can be ordered to run concurrently, where independent complaints have been filed against an accused relating to dishonour of different cheques issued in discharge of liability.
Benefit under Section 427 of CrPC
The benefit of concurrent running of sentences under Section 427 of the CrPC would be available to an accused where — among other things — transactions in question appeared to be part of a ‘single transaction’
Elaborating, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj made it clear that the benefit of concurrent running of sentences under Section 427 of the CrPC would be available to an accused where — among other things — transactions in question appeared to be part of a “single transaction”.
Justice Bhardwaj asserted Section 427 contemplated a situation where the accused was convicted and sentenced for offences in separate trials. It sprang into action after different trials had already concluded and separate sentences were being imposed. As per the section, subsequent sentences could be ordered to run concurrently with the previous sentence. Referring to Sections 220, 223 and 427 of the CrPC and other provisions of law, Justice Bhardwaj asserted the provisions tend to accord the benefit of extending an indulgence to the accused for the sentences to run concurrently and that the accused ought not to be subjected to multiple trials, multiple convictions or multiple sentences.
Justice Bhardwaj added single transaction had not been defined anywhere in the code. But it could safely be concluded that it would be essential for a court to examine certain aspects to ascertain whether a transaction could be regarded as single, including the proximity of time and place; unity of purpose and design; continuity of action in respect of series of acts; acts /series of acts connected together to form same transaction; or where the parties were same and the case was tried together by singularity/ commonness of the evidence. The other aspects included situations where the nature of the offence and the transactions were akin to each other; or where the offences were intertwined as to form part of the same transaction.
Justice Bhardwaj further added a transaction in the nature of issuance of multiple cheques towards discharge of a single liability had a potential of great misuse on either side. It might incite an accused to swell his liability and to not pay despite issuance of multiple cheques. The creditor, too, could secure multiple cheques for each instalment and lodge different complaints against default of each cheque before claiming consecutive running of sentences in each case to seek confinement for an indefinite period. The crucial test was similarity of transaction and not the quantum of money involved. “A court is thus required to maintain a fine balance by imposing a sentence so that the reformatory, retributive and deterrent effects are balanced well,” Justice Bhardwaj observed.
Can order concurrent running of sentences in cheque bounce cases: HC
{$excerpt:n}
