The High Court of Karnataka recently comprising of a bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh noted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not paid the amount as directed by the Court, but he has committed a default in payment of the fine amount. When such being the case, the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation cannot be directed to run concurrently.( M/S M.M.Fabs And Tools V. Sri. Narasimha Murthy And Ors)
Facts of the Case
The respondents had filed three different complaints against the petitioner for the offenses punishable U/S138 NI Act. Learned Magistrate, after the trial, convicted and sentenced him. The orders were challenged in three separate Criminal Revision Petitions wherein the sentence was modified and the petitioner was directed, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year in default of making the payment. The present petition was filed praying for the orders to run concurrently.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner in spite of serving the sentence for a period of one year in view of the order passed by this Court is still detained in jail, which is erroneous, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. In all passed by the learned Magistrate, there are no specific directions that the sentences shall run consecutively, thus it is just and necessary to hold the sentence passed against the petitioner to run concurrently.
The Counsel for the Petitioner also brought to the notice of the court that the provisions of section 472 (1) of Cr.P.C and prayed the court to hold the sentence as concurrent. The counsel also relied on the judgment in the case of V.K Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another [(2013) 7 SCC 211.]. referring to the judgment he contended that the sentence so imposed on the petitioner ought to have been made as concurrent.
The counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the cheques were issued in respect of different transactions. However, three criminal cases are filed against the petitioner. He contended that the transactions are not a single transaction but different transactions and the complainants are also different. Hence, the judgment of the Apex Court referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand.
The counsel also brought to the notice of this court that in the judgment of the Apex Court it is also clear that in case of default sentence, the same cannot be made as concurrent as it has been contented by the counsel for the petitioner.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court observed, “ Having persued the orders, the default sentence is for a period of 1 year. Learned counsel appearing for the petioner would vehemently contended that both these sentence should run concurrenly. The Apex Court in V.K.Bansal’s case discussed with regard to section 472(1) of Cr.P.C which stipulates the discretionary power of the Court to direct sentence to run concurrently and also discussed with regards to when it should be laid down. However, only substantive sentence can be directed to run concurrently and sentence awarded in default of fine/compensation be directed to run concurrently.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner though relied upon this judgment, failed to take note of the fact that Apex court categorically held that sentence awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation cannot be directed to run concurrently. In the case on hand, it is not dispute that the petitioner has not paid the amount as directed by the court but he has committed a default in payment of fine amount. When such being the case, sentence awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation cannot be directed to run concurrently.”
The Court even referred to the judgment of the Apex court, where in the Court had discussed in detail regarding the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation, and held that section 472 of Cr.P.C permits a direction fr concurrent running of the substantive sentence with sentence awarded in default of payment of fine/Compensation.
The Court also made reference to the judgment of Apex court in the case of V.K.Bansal v. the State of Haryana and Another, and observed, “We make it clear that the direction regarding the concurrent running of sentence shall be limited to the substantive sentence only. The sentence which the appellant has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be affected by this direction. We do so because the provisions of Section 427 CrPC do not, in our opinion, permit a direction for the concurrent running of the substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation.”
The court considering the precedents and the facts of the case held that, the petitioner had not paid the amount and he has committed default of payment of fine/compensation amount, considering that the Apex Court held that Section 427 of Cr.P.C. does not permit to issue a direction for the concurrent running of the substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation, the court dismissed the petition.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
