V. K. .BANSAL versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 05-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 617 
V. K. .BANSAL 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
{Criminal Appeal
1 Nos. 836-851 of 2013) 
JULY 05, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 
A 
B 
s. 138 - Dishonour of Cheques - Conviction and c 
sentence - Plea for concurrent running of sentences - Held: 
Applying the principle of single transaction, the substantive 
sentences awarded to the appellant in each case relevant to 
the transactions with each company ought to run concurrently 
-
However, there is no reason to extend that concession to 
0 
transactions in which the borrowing company is different, no 
matter the appellant before the court is the promoter/Director 
of the said other companies also -
Direction regarding 
concurrent running of sentence shall be limited to the 
substantive sentences only because the provisions of s. 427, 
E 
Cr.P. C. do not permit a qirection for the concurrent running 
of the substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default 
· of payment of fine/ compensation -
Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - s.427. 
The instant appeals arose out of the conviction and 
F 
sentences imposed upon . the appellant, as a director of 
the borrowing companies, in several cases, for dishonour 
of cheques issued by the said companies. The question 
for consideration before the Court was: whether the High 
Court was right in declining the prayer made by the G 
appellant for a direction in terms of s. 427 read with s. 482 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the sentences 
awarded to him in the cases uls. 138 of the Negotiable 
Instruments Act, to run concurrently. 
617 
H 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals in part, the Court: 
HELD: 1.1. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 deals with situations where an offender 
who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment 
8 is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to 
imprisonment or imprisonment for life. It provides that 
such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall 
commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which 
he has been previously sentenced unless the court 
directs that the subsequent sentence shall run 
C concurrently with such previous sentence. Section 
427(1) of the Code, stipulates a general rule to be followed 
except in three situations, one falling under the proviso 
to sub-s (1) to s. 427 i.e. where the person concerned is 
sentenced to imprisonment by an order u/s. 122 in default 
D of furnishing security which is not the position in the case 
at hand; the second falling under sub-s (2) where a 
person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment 
for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to 
imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life; it 
E provides that the subsequent sentence shall in such a 
case run concurrently with such previous sentence; and 
the third where the court directs that the sentences shall 
run concurrently. It is manifest from s. 427(1) that the 
court has the power and the discretion to issue a 
F direction but in the very nature of the power so conferred 
upon the court the discretionary power shall have to be 
exercised along judicial lines and not in a mechanical, 
wooden or pedantic manner. It is difficult to lay down any 
strait jacket approach in the matter of exercise of such 
G discretion by the courts. Whether or not a direction ought 
to be issued in a given case would depend upon the 
nature of the offence(s) committed, and the fact situation 
in which the question of concurrent running of the 
sentences arises. High Courts in this country have, 
H therefore, invoked and exercised their discretion to issue 
V. K. BANSAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 
619 
directions for concurrent running of sentence* as much 
A 
as they have declined such benefit to the prisoners**. 
[Para 8-10] [623-F-H; 624-E-H; 625-A-E] 
*State of Punjab v. Madan Lal 2009 (3) SCR 1175 = 
(2009) 5 SCC 238; Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant B 
Collector of Customs 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 747 = (1988) 4 
SCC 183 and Mu/aim Singh v. State 1974 Crl. L.J. 1397 -
referred to. 
**Sumlo @ Sum/a Him/a Bhuriya and Ors. v. State of 
Gujarat anq Ors. 2007 Crl.L.J. 612 and State of Gujarat v. 
C 
Zaverbhai Kababhai 1996 Crl.L.J. 1296 - referred to. 
1.2. The legal position favours exercise of discretion 
to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the 
prosecution is based on a single transaction, no matter 0 
different complaints in relation thereto
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.