IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2937 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2008 IN CMP 1548/2008 IN ST.747/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERAMBRA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- O.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, OTTAPLACKAL HOUSE, KOORACHUNDU AMSOM, KALLANODE DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. M.C.BAVU, S/O.POULOSE, MANGALATH PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KOORACHUNDU AMSOM DESOM, ATHIYODI.P.O, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP:BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2937 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in two different prosecutions, both under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and those were launched by two different complainants. The allegations related to two different cheques. 2. The petitioner challenged the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence. The challenge was turned down. Leniently and indulgently the substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of court as also directions for payment of compensation were imposed in two different cases. Default sentences were also imposed in the two cases. The petitioner did not pay the compensation amounts. The default sentences are being executed now. The default sentence is for S.I. for three months in both cases. The petitioner has already served imprisonment for three months in the first case. He is being detained to undergo imprisonment in the later case. The petitioner prays that there may be a direction that the petitioner Crl.M.C.No. 2937 of 2008 2 need undergo the default sentences in the two different cases only concurrently and not consecutively. The orders passed in the revision are not produced . I therefore wanted the counsel to explain to me the nature of the relief which the petitioner is seeking and the above is the statement of facts given by the counsel for the petitioner. 3. I find absolutely no justification in the prayer. Offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been committed against two different individuals in respect of two different cases, which relate to two different cheques. I find no merit in the contention that the default sentences must be directed to run concurrently. The petitioner has no claim in equity, law or justice to plead that the default sentences in respect of offences committed against different individuals in respect of different cheques imposed in two different cases must be directed to run concurrently. 4. This Crl.M.C. is without any merit and is consequently dismissed. (R. BASANT) tm Judge Crl.M.C.No. 2937 of 2008 3