SHYAM PAL versus DAYAWATL BESOYA & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 28-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 8 S.C.R. 419 
SHYAM PAL 
v. 
DAYAWATl BESOYA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 988-989of2016) 
OCTOBER 28, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Se11tence!Sentencing - Concurrence of sentence - Two 
complaints u/s. J 38 of Negotiable J11stru111ents Act - Against 
appellant-accused in respect of t11'o transactions - Conviction under 
bolh the cases - Sentence of simple imprisonment for JO months 
and fine of Rs. 6,50, 0001- as compensation - Default sentence ll'as 
six months imprisonme/1/ - Appellate court upheld the conviction 
and sentence - Jn Revision High Court upheld the order of 
conviction and sentence - However. reduced the default sentence 
from 6 molllhs to 3 monlhs - Plea of the accused that the sentences 
should have run concurrently rejected by High Court - On appeal, 
held: s . ./27 Cr.P. C. provides for concurrent sentence - Jn the present 
cuse, both !he cases in respec/ of two transaclio'ns, though 
undertaken at different points of time, should be deemed as a singular 
transaction - Therefore, in the facts of the case, the accused is 
entilled to benefit uA . ./27 O:P.C. - Sentences of JO months simple 
imprisonment in !he 111•0 complaillt cases would run concurrently -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - s../27 - Negotiable instruments 
Act, J88J - s.J38. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The materials on record leave 110 manner of 
doubt that the complaints filed by the res11011dcnts stem from 
two identical transactions between the same parties whereunder 
the respondent had advanced loan of Rs.5 lacs each to the 
appellant on two different dates against which the latter had issued 
cheques to discharge his debt and that the cheques had been 
dishonored. The facts pleaded and proved do unassailably 
demonstrate that the loans advanced had been in the course of a 
series of transactions between the same parties on same terms 
and conditions. Significantly in both the cases, following the 
conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable 
419 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A Instruments Act, the same sentences as well have been awarded. 
There is thus an overwhelming identicalness in the features of 
both the cases permitting the two transactions, though undertaken 
at different points of time, to be deemed as a singular transaction 
or two segments of one transaction. This deduction 
B 
understandably is in the singular facts of the case. [Para 10)(423-
D-F] 
2. The law on the orientation of two sentences awarded to 
an offender following his conviction successively, to define the 
cumulative duration thereof i~ envisaged in Section 427 Cr.P.C. 
C The appellant is entitled to the benefit of the discretion contained 
in Section 427 Cr.P.C., in view of the nature of the transactions 
between the parties thereto, the offences involved, the sentences 
awarded and the period of detention of the appellant as on date. 
It is thus ordered that the substantive sentences of 10 months 
simple imprisonment awarded to the appellant in the two 
D complaint cases would run concurrently. The appellant would be 
entitled to all consequential reliefs with regard to his release 
from custody as available in law based on this determination. 
[Paras 12, 16 and 17)(424-B-C; 426-A-C] 
V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another [2013) 7 
E 
SCR 617 : (2013) 7 SCC 211; Benson v. State of Kera/a 
[2016) 8 SCR 166 : 2016 (10) SCC 307 - relied on. 
2013 (7) SCR 617 
(2016) 8 SCR 166 
Case Law Reference 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 13 
Para 15 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
G 
Nos. 988-989 of20J 6. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2016 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Rev. P. 403 of2015. 
Jayant K. Sud, Honey Khanna, Ajay P. Tushir, Mrs. Priya Puri, 
I\ dvs. for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AMITAVA ROY, J. I. The instant appeals call in question the 
judgment and order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi 
H 
in Criminal Revision Petition No.403 of2015, sustaining the conviction 
SHYAM PAL v. DAYAWATI BESOYA & ANR. 
[AMITAVA ROY, J.] 
421 
ofthe appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 
A 
1988 (hereafter referred to as the "Act") as recorded by the Trial Court 
and affinned in appeal by the District and Sessions Judge, Saket Court, 
New Delhi. The High Court while maintaining the substantive sentence 
of simple imprisonment for 10 mont

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.