STATE OF PUNJAB versus MADAN LAL

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 1175 · Decided: 05-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 1175 
ST ATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
MADAN LAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2004) 
MARCH 5, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s.138 - Conviction 
under - Matter related to different cheques issued by C 
accused-respondent to complainant party towards which 
separate complaints were filed - Application in terms of s.482 
rlw s.427 CrPC with prayer to the effect that the quantum of 
punishment awarded to respondent be permitted to run 
~ 
concurrently in respect of the three convictions and sentences D 
imposed - Application allowed by High Court - Justification 
of - Held: Justified - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.482 rlw s.427 and s.428 - Sentence I Sentencing -
Concurrent sentence. 
State of Maharashtra v. Najakat alias Mubarak Ali (2001) 
6 SCC 311 and Mohd. Akthar alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. 
~ 
Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmadabad and 
Others AIR (1988) SC 2143, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2001) s sec 311 
AIR (1988) SC 2143 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 4 
Para 5 
E 
F 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 529 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2002 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal 
1175 
H 
1176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A Msc. No. 33774 of 2002. 
Kuldip Singh for the Appellant. 
Anita Gupta for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. The State of Punjab is in 
appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the 
Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the application filed 
c in terms of Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The prayer was 
to the effect that the quantum of punishment awarded may be 
permitted to run concurrently in respect of the three convictions 
and sentences imposed. 
D 
2. The convictions were in terms of Section 138 of the 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the 'Act'). The High 
Court noted that all the transactions related to the family of the 
respondent and the matter related to different cheques issued 
by the respondent to the complainant party. For this purpose 
E separate complaints were filed. The High Court accordingly 
directed that the sentences imposed by learned Additional 
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and Sub Divisional Judicial 
Magistrate, Khanna were to run concurrently. 
F 
3. According to the State the judgment of the High Court 
is erroneous. 
4. In the impugned judgment of the High Court, reference 
was made to the decision of this court in Mohd. Akthar alias 
G Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs 
6Prevention), Ahmadabad and Others (AIR 1988 SC 2143) 
wherein it was held as under :-
H 
"The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the 
so called transactions rule for concurrent sentences. If a 
... 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MADAN LAL 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
1177 
given transaction constitutes two offences under two 
A 
enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive 
sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent 
sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction 
relating to offence is shot the same or the facts constituting 
the two offences are quite different." 
B 
5. The majority view in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat 
alias Mubarak Ali [2001 (6) SCC 311] was to similar effect. 
Paragraphs 14 to 18 in the above case it was held as follows: 
"14. The purpose of Section 428 of the Code is also for C 
advancing amelioration to the prisoner. We may point 
out that the section does not contain any indication that if 
the prisoner was in jail as an under-trial prisoner in a 
second case the benefit envisaged in the section would 
be denied to him in respect of the second case. However, 
D 
learned counsel for the appellant contended that the words 
of the same case in the section would afford sufficient 
indication that the benefit is intended to cover only for one 
case and not more than that. It must be remembered that 
the ideology enshrined in Section 428 was introduced for 
E 
the first time only in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
For understanding the contours of the legislative measure 
involved in that section, it is advantageous to have a look 
at the Objects and Reasons for bringing the above 
legislative provision. We therefore extract the same here: 
F 
"The Committee has noted

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