1 S.B. Crl. Revision Pet No. 39/10 (Ranjeet Vs. State & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 39/10 (Ranjeet Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date : 28th July, 2010 HON'BLE MR. C.M. TOTLA, J. Mr. R.S. Gill for the petitioner Mrs. Chandralekha, P.P. Mr. Hemant Dutt for the respondent. = = = = This revision questioning illegality and arbitrariness of revisionist conviction for the offence of Section 138 NI Act and punishment of one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2 lac recorded in C.r. No. 675/05 before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga vide judgment dated 20.04.09 and affirmed in Appeal No. 55/09 by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 16.12.09. Respondent complainant averring that accused his legal liabilities to pay Rs. 1,32,500/- to complainant gave a cheque of this amount on 02.06.05 which when submitted to Bank on 19.9.05 dishonoured because account being closed and issuer did not pay despite service of notice dated 10.09.05 – instituted complaint. Recording evidence and for stated reasons convicted found guilty and sentenced. Confining arguments to quantum of sentence state that petitioner due to constrains could not pay and continuously unable to pay – is undergoing sentence for two months and even could not pay Rs.40,000/- as ordered while suspending sentence on 14.5.09 and therefore is in custody since October, 2009. Argued that he was also convicted for the same offence of 138 NI Act and in other case No. 672/05 of the same 2 S.B. Crl. Revision Pet No. 39/10 (Ranjeet Vs. State & Ors. Court and sentence awarded of one year imprisonment is reduced to that of undergone about eight months by judgment dated 26.4.10 in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 37/10. Submits that just and appropriate to order concurrent running of these two different sentences for the same typ e of offences in two different cases. Thrustly submitting for concurrent running of sentence cited are (i) 2009 SCC 749 Amawasi Vs. Inspector of Police (ii) 2009 (2) SCC Crl. 650 State of Punjab Vs. Madan lal (iii) order dated 26.4.10 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 37/10 reducing sentenced of revisionist in other case. Learned counsel for the respondent complainant argues that is convicted in two different cases – complaints in two cases different – amount of cheque in this case Rs.1,32,000/- and in other was above Rs.1 lac. Two different were the cases – as filed by different persons so clear that revisionist in habit of such offences – that in this case if undergone not more than a month or two for other conviction sentence substantive is reduced and for non-payment of fine, sentence is y et to be completed. Argued that appellant failing to pay amount, respondent complainant is deprived of his lawful entitlement and no case for order of concurrent sentence is made out. Lastly submitted that any revision not should be ordered concurrent of two different cases. In support of contentions cited are (i) 2006 Crl.L.J 1853 Vishnu Vs. Venkatesh (ii) AIR 2002 SC 681 Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan (iii) AIR 2007 SC 568. Given thoughtful consideration to arguments and gone through the record. Admittedly not controverted is the position that petitioner is convicted in two cases including one of same nature i.e. 138 NI Act. Cheque in the instant case was of Rs.1,32,000/- - for other case near about this amount. Complaints were by two different persons and 3 S.B. Crl. Revision Pet No. 39/10 (Ranjeet Vs. State & Ors. convicted by same Court and substantive imprisonment also the same. Between judgments times span states is not much. Going through the record of the instant case it appear that revisionist complying directions of appellate court suspending sentence, his attendance procured calling him from July 23.10.09. In ordersheets wherein is mentioned that in judicial custody in other appeal. As such imprisoned since October, 2009. For other conviction vide order dated 26.4.10 substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, so now factum remains that appellant prisoned since October, 2009 i.e. about ten months and conviction recorded by the same court for same nature of offence is but complainants different. Section 427 provides for sentence to offender already sentenced and also empower the Court to direct about commencement (not imprisonment for life) and unless otherwise directed sentences on subsequent conviction to follow after completion of previous sentence. Section 428 provides for setting off the period of detention undergone. If simultaneously remains pending trial in detention in two different cases not is prohibited of setting off in both cases. Consecutive running of sentence imposed in same case normally is not though can be for adequate grounds. In subsequent conviction for the imposed sentence concurrent running can be directed. In giving or declining to give such directions, provisions like for permissible charging together and series of transactions are also considerable and depending on all other related aspects, consideration also can be in appeal or revision. Basic principle applicable seems to be is of transaction rule. If in given transaction parts of that transaction constitute one offence and other parts different offence and all some different then normal is to be punished for graviest. Directing concurrent or not normally also depends upon emerging facts. For and in the instant case record disclose that 4 S.B. Crl. Revision Pet No. 39/10 (Ranjeet Vs. State & Ors. petitioner in imprisonment from October, 2009 – cases similar seem very akin and other one finally decided in April, 2010 and taking for this case alone and after April undergone more than two months – in both cases since August, 2009 and conviction for same offences by same Court. For above reasons and facts, in the opinion of the Court, sufficient shall be and it will meet ends of justice and also purpose of sufficiency of sentence if sentence substantive awarded is reduced to that of already undergone and sentence of non-payment of fine remaining intact. As above revision is decided as partly allowed. Ordering as above, substantive sentence of one year awarded is reduced to that of sentence already undergone. Sentence awarded of there months simple imprisonment for non-payment of fine remaining intact. It is clarified that order do not entail any substantive imprisonment undergone towards that of payment of fine. Sentence for non-payment of fine to remain separate. (C.M. TOTLA), J. bjsh