(1) Crr-2877-2013 Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153630
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
Appellant(1) Crr-2877-2013
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
crr-2877-2013 1 in the punjab & haryana high court at chandigarh date of decision : 30.06.2014 (1) crr-2877-2013 naveen kumar dubey (panditji) ..petitioner versus state of punjab and another ..respondents (2) crr-2880-2013 naveen kumar dubey (panditji) ..petitioner versus state of punjab and another ..respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice rekha mittal present: mr.vishal aggarwal, advocate for the petitioner. mr.amarinder singh klar, aag, punjab. mr.sunil agnihotri, advocate for respondent no.2. rekha mittal, j.(oral) this order will dispose of the aforesaid petitions as these involve identical questions of law and fact, for adjudication. naveen kumar dubey (convict) in the aforesaid petitions has assailed the judgments passed by the courts below whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act 1881 (in short “the act”.) for dishonour of cheque no.149772 dated 15.09.2009 in the sum of rs.1 lac and cheque no.497862 dated 02.10.2009 of rs.50,000/-. davinder kumar 2014.07.03 12:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crr-2877-2013 2 counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that there is no substantial challenge to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below holding the petitioner guilty of committing offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (in short 'the act').counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that as the two cheques bearing no.149772 dated 15.09.2009 of rs.1 lac and cheque no.497862 dated 02.10.2009 of rs.50,000/- were issued by the petitioner for discharge of liability arising out of the same transaction pertaining to loan amounting to rs.1.5 lacs taken by the petitioner on 14.08.2009, the sentence awarded in these two cases may be ordered to run concurrently. it is further argued that apart from these two cases, the petitioner has also been convicted and sentenced in two more cases for offence punishable under section 138 of the act, wherein the criminal proceedings were initiated by jagtar singh in criminal complaint no.84 of 2010 and by respondent raja ram in complaint no.65 of 2010. it is further argued that in case the substantive sentence in these two cases is not allowed to run concurrently, the period of confinement of the petitioner in the jail would further increase causing a serious prejudice to his family members who are on the verge of starvation. counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, has refuted the contention of the petitioner with the submissions that the petitioner does not deserve judicial discretion of this court in view of his conduct that he issued three cheques in favour of the respondent to discharge his liability and all the cheques got dishonoured on its presentation to the bank. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. a plain reading of averments set out in the criminal complaints culminated in the impugned judgments makes it apparent that as per plea of the davinder kumar 2014.07.03 12:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crr-2877-2013 3 complainant (respondent no.2).the petitioner on 14.08.2009 borrowed an amount of rs.1.5 lacs for his personal need and on 14.09.2009 he issued the aforesaid two cheques of the value of rs.1 lac and 50,000/- respectively to discharge his liability, therefore, the liability of the petitioner in regard to dishonour of the aforesaid two cheques is based on a single transaction. the hon'ble supreme court of india in v.k.bansal versus state of haryana and others.2013(3) rcr (criminal) 983 examined the provisions of section 427 cr.p.c.for concurrent running of sentence. the court after taking into consideration various judgments passed by different high courts came to record its conclusion in para 15, quoted hereinbelow:- “15. in conclusion, we may say that 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 different complaints in relation thereto may have been filed as is the position in cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by the borrower towards repayment of a loan to the creditor.”. keeping in view the observations made by the hon'ble supreme court in v.k.bansal's case (supra) and applying the principle of single transaction referred to above to the above fact situation, i am of the considered opinion that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner in these cases can be allowed to run concurrently and ordered accordingly. the petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.(rekha mittal) judge june 30, 2014. davinder kumar davinder kumar 2014.07.03 12:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CRR-2877-2013 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 30.06.2014 (1) CRR-2877-2013 Naveen Kumar Dubey (Panditji) ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents (2) CRR-2880-2013 Naveen Kumar Dubey (Panditji) ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Amarinder Singh Klar, AAG, Punjab.

Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent No.2.

REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) This order will dispose of the aforesaid petitions as these involve identical questions of law and fact, for adjudication.

Naveen Kumar Dubey (convict) in the aforesaid petitions has assailed the judgments passed by the Courts below whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (in short “the Act”.) for dishonour of cheque No.149772 dated 15.09.2009 in the sum of Rs.1 lac and cheque No.497862 dated 02.10.2009 of Rs.50,000/-.

Davinder Kumar 2014.07.03 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2877-2013 2 Counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that there is no substantial challenge to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act').Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that as the two cheques bearing No.149772 dated 15.09.2009 of Rs.1 lac and cheque No.497862 dated 02.10.2009 of Rs.50,000/- were issued by the petitioner for discharge of liability arising out of the same transaction pertaining to loan amounting to Rs.1.5 lacs taken by the petitioner on 14.08.2009, the sentence awarded in these two cases may be ordered to run concurrently.

It is further argued that apart from these two cases, the petitioner has also been convicted and sentenced in two more cases for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, wherein the criminal proceedings were initiated by Jagtar Singh in criminal complaint No.84 of 2010 and by respondent Raja Ram in complaint No.65 of 2010.

It is further argued that in case the substantive sentence in these two cases is not allowed to run concurrently, the period of confinement of the petitioner in the jail would further increase causing a serious prejudice to his family members who are on the verge of starvation.

Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, has refuted the contention of the petitioner with the submissions that the petitioner does not deserve judicial discretion of this Court in view of his conduct that he issued three cheques in favour of the respondent to discharge his liability and all the cheques got dishonoured on its presentation to the bank.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

A plain reading of averments set out in the criminal complaints culminated in the impugned judgments makes it apparent that as per plea of the Davinder Kumar 2014.07.03 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2877-2013 3 complainant (respondent No.2).the petitioner on 14.08.2009 borrowed an amount of Rs.1.5 lacs for his personal need and on 14.09.2009 he issued the aforesaid two cheques of the value of Rs.1 lac and 50,000/- respectively to discharge his liability, therefore, the liability of the petitioner in regard to dishonour of the aforesaid two cheques is based on a single transaction.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in V.K.Bansal versus State of Haryana and otheRs.2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 983 examined the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C.for concurrent running of sentence.

The Court after taking into consideration various judgments passed by different High Courts came to record its conclusion in para 15, quoted hereinbelow:- “15.

In conclusion, we may say that 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 different complaints in relation thereto may have been filed as is the position in cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by the borrower towards repayment of a loan to the creditor.”

.

Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.K.Bansal's case (supra) and applying the principle of single transaction referred to above to the above fact situation, I am of the considered opinion that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner in these cases can be allowed to run concurrently and ordered accordingly.

The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terMs.(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE June 30, 2014.

Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.07.03 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document