Delhi High Court
Smt. Resham Devi Surana vs State (Gnct Delhi) & Anr. on 29 April, 2019
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.04.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 629/2016 and CRL.M.A. 6370/2018 and CRL.
M.A. 7711/2018
SMT RESHAM DEVI SURANA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (GNCT DELHI)& ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Sharma and Mr. Ravinder Jain, Advs.
For the Respondent : Mr. Hiren Sharma, APP for the State
Mr. Karan Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.2 with
AR Mr. Raj Kumar Kashyap
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns judgement dated 04.07.2016, whereby three
appeals of the petitioner impugning three separate orders of
conviction in Complaint Case No. 289/1/2002, 290/1/2002 and
291/1/2002 were dismissed.
2. Petitioner was convicted of the offence Under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentence to undergo simple
imprisonment of one year each in the three cases and to pay
compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-, Rs. 30,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,00,000/-
respectively in the three cases and in default to undergo three months
imprisonment in each of the cases.
3. Parties have settled their disputes. Learned counsel for the
respondents - complainant submits that petitioner has suffered
substantial setback in her life. Her husband is suffering from Cancer
and is not able to work and she herself is ailing and their financial
condition is very poor.
4. Learned counsel submits that keeping in view of the condition
of the petitioner and her family, the respondent - complaint has
agreed to waive off the entire claim against the petitioner and has
settled the disputes without accepting any amount.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
already completed the substantive sentence in Complaint Case No.
289/1/2012 on 18.05.2017 and as on 28.08.2018 had undergone 10
months and 24 days of incarceration in Complaint Case No.
290/1/2012. The sentence of the petitioner was suspended by order
dated 26.04.2018 with the result that petitioner suffered further two
months of incarceration.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the three cases
emanate out of one single transaction as the three cheques were for
return of one loan amount of Rs. 1 crore. It is submitted that three
cheques were for refund of principal as well as interest accrued on the
loan amount and in terms of Section 427 (1), the substantive sentences
of the three cases should have been directed to run concurrently.
7. Learned counsel submits that since judgments were passed by
the Trial Court on different dates, the court did not direct the
sentences to run concurrently, however, appellate court has erred in
the impugned judgment by not modifying the sentences to run
concurrently.
8. Learned counsel the respondent fairly concedes that the
transaction in respect to which the three cheques were issued was one
single transaction.
9. Since admittedly the three cases emanate out of one single
transaction, applying the ratio of the judgement of the Supreme Court
in V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 211, the
Appellate Court should have modified the sentences so that the
substantive sentences would have run concurrently.
10. In case, substantive sentences of the petitioner were to run
concurrently and the in-default sentences were to run successively,
petitioner would have had to undergo one year and 9 months of
incarceration. As noticed from the nominal roll, petitioner has
undergone nearly two years of incarceration cumulatively in all the
three cases.
11. Petitioner has also filed an application seeking compounding of
the subject offence and waiver of the cost liable to be imposed in
terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.
Sayed Babalal H. 2010(5) SCC 663.
12. Though, in the said application it is contended that the
petitioner does not have the wherewithal to pay the costs, however, no
documents showing her financial conditions has been annexed.
13. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already undergone
over two years of incarceration, I am of the view that interest of
justice would be served if the impugned order dated 04.07.2016 is
modified to the limited extent, to direct that the substantive sentences
in all three cases shall run concurrently and the in-default sentences
would run successively.
14. In view of the above, it is directed that the substantive
sentences in all three cases shall run concurrently and the in-default
sentences would run successively.
15. The sequitur of the above is that petitioner having undergone
two years of incarceration, is declared to have undergone the
substantive and in-default sentences in all the three cases.
Accordingly, petitioner is directed to be released in the above three
cases. The Bail bonds are discharged.
16. Petition along with all the pending applications are disposed of
in the above terms.
17. Copy of the judgment be forwarded to the concerned Trial
Court and Superintendent Jail for compliance.
18. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 29, 2019
savita
