Karnataka High Court
Mr Surendra vs Mrs Malarkodi Jayakumar on 1 March, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8673
CRL.P No. 990 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 990 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. SURENDRA
S/O LATE K. ARMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.34, IST BLOCK
2ND CROSS, DR.S. KUMAR LAYOUT
MARUTHISEVANAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 033.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANJUNATHA RAO LOKANDE N, ADV.)
AND:
MRS MALARKODI JAYAKUMAR
W/O JAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE
AT NO.7, 5TH CROSS, C. STREET
Digitally signed HUTCHINS ROAD, ST. THOMAS TOWN
by B A KRISHNA
KUMAR BENGALURU - 560 084
Location: HIGH PRESENTLY R/AT NO.250
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 9TH CROSS, M.K.B. NAGAR
VYASARPADI, CHENNAI - 600 039
REP BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY
SRI R. JAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE G.V. RAMANUJAM
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NO.7, 5TH CROSS, C. STREET
HUTCHINS ROAD
ST. THOMAS TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 084.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8673
CRL.P No. 990 of 2024
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO CONSIDER AND
DIRECT THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.09.2022 IN
CRL.A.25016/2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU(CCH-22)
WHICH IS AARISING OUT OF C.C.NO.54563/2016 HON'BLE LVIII
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT
BANGALORE (58-ACMM), AND IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.25017/2019
DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XIII ADDL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE (CCH-22)
WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF C.C.NO.54563/2016 HON'BLE LVIII
ADDL. CHIEF METORPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BANGALORE (58-ACMM) TO RUN SENTENCE CONCURRENTLY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioner, who has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N. I. Act' for short) in
C.C.No.52002/2016 and C.C.No.54563/2016 by the
jurisdictional Court of Magistrate has approached this Court
seeking for the following reliefs:-
"a. Consider and direct the order of
conviction dated 30.09.2022 in Criminal
appeal No.25016/2019 passed by the Hon'ble
XIII Addl city civil and sessions judge
Mayohall unit, Bangalore (CCH-22) which is
arising out of C.C.No.54563/2016 Hon'ble
LVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mayo Hall Unit, bangaore (58-ACMM), and in
Criminal appeal No.25017/2019 dated
NC: 2024:KHC:8673
19.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble XIII Addl
City civil and sessions judge Mayohall unit,
Bangalore (CCH-22) which is arising out of
C.C.No.52002/2016 Hon'ble LVIII Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bangalore (58-ACMM) to run sentence
concurrently.
b. Grant such other relief or reliefs as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the
facts and circumstances of the case, in the
ends of justice."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties to
C.C.No.52002/2016 and C.C.No.54563/2016 are common.
Petitioner has been convicted in both the cases for the offence
under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Therefore, sentences passed
in both the cases is required to be ordered to run concurrently.
He refers to Section 427 of Cr.P.C. and also to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. K. Bansal vs.
State of Haryana and Others reported in (2013) 7 SCC
211, in support of his arguments.
NC: 2024:KHC:8673
4. Section 427 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
"427. Sentence on offender already
sentenced for another offence.--(1) When
a person already undergoing a sentence of
imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent
conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment
for life, 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
concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been
sentenced to imprisonment by an order under
section 122 in default of furnishing security
is, whilst undergoing such sentence,
sentenced to imprisonment for an offence
committed prior to the making of such order,
the latter sentence shall commence
immediately.
(2) When 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, the
subsequent sentence shall run concurrently
with such previous sentence."
NC: 2024:KHC:8673
5. A reading of the said provision of law would make it clear
that, it is only the sentence of imprisonment that can be
ordered to run concurrently and not a sentence of payment of
fine. In the present case, petitioner has been sentenced only to
pay fine and in default, he is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. K.
Bansal (supra) has observed that the sentences which the
appellant has been directed to undergo in default of payment of
fine/compensation shall not be affected by the direction given
in the said case. Under the circumstances, I do not find any
merit in this criminal petition. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DN
