Case: V.K.Bansal Vs. State Of Haryana &amp; Ors.Etc.Etc

The appellant is a Director in a group of companies including Arawali Tubes Ltd., Arawali Alloys Ltd., Arawali Pipes Ltd. and Sabhyata Plastics Pvt. Ltd. The appellants case before us in that in connection with his business conducted in the name of the above companies, he had approached the respondent, Haryana Financial Corporation for financial assistance and facilities. The Corporation had accepted the requests made by the Companies and granted financial assistance to the first three of the four companies mentioned above. Several cheques towards repayment of the amount borrowed by the appellant in the name of the above companies were issued in favour of the Haryana Financial Corporation which on presentation were dishonoured by the banks concerned for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, the Corporation instituted complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant in his capacity as the Director of the borrowing companies. These complaints were tried by Judicial Magistrates at Hissar culminating in the conviction of the appellant and sentence of imprisonment which ranged between 6 months in some cases to one year in some others besides imposition of different amounts of fine levied in each complaint case and a default sentence in the event of non payment of amount awarded in each one of those cases4. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence in the cases filed against him the appellant preferred appeals which were heard and dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar in terms of separate orders passed in each case. In some of the cases the Appellate Court reduced the sentence from one year to nine months5. The appellant then approached the High Court by way of revision petitions. The High Court dismissed 15 out of 17 revisions petitions in which the appellant was convicted. The remaining two revision petitions are still pending before the High Court. The High Court noticed that the appellant had not questioned the correctness of the conviction before the appellate Court which disentitled him to do so in revision. That position was, it appears, not disputed even by the appellant, the only contention urged before the High Court being that instead of the sentences awarded to him running consecutively they ought to run concurrently. That contention was turned down by the High Court holding that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant was not excessive so as to warrant its reduction or a direction for concurrent running of the same. The High Court noted:As regards sentence, keeping in view the amount of cheques, sentence of simple imprisonment for six months in each case cannot be said to be excessive so as warrant reduction or direction for concurrent running of the sentences in all the 8 cases. Even sentence in default of payment of fine, which is huge amount, also cannot be said to be excessive6. The revision petitions filed by the appellant along with the criminal miscellaneous applications moved under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. were accordingly dismissed. The present appeals assail the correctness of the orders passed by the High Court which are no doubt separate but in similar terms.

Court's reasoning:
We are in the case at hand concerned more with the nature of power available to the Court under Section 427(1) of the Code, which in our opinion stipulates a general rule to be followed except in three situations, one falling under the proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 427, the second falling under sub-section (2) thereof and the third where the Court directs that the sentences shall run concurrently. It is manifest from Section 427(1) that the Court has the power and the discretion to issue a direction but in the very nature of the power so conferred upon the Court the discretionary power shall have to be exercised along judicial lines and not in a mechanical, wooden or pedantic manner. It is difficult to lay down any strait jacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the Courts. There is no cut and dried formula for the Court to follow in the matter of issue or refusal of a direction within the contemplation of Section 427(1). Whether or not a direction ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed, and the fact situation in which the question of concurrent running of the sentences arises. High Courts in this country have, therefore, invoked and exercised their discretion to issue directions for concurrent running of sentence as much as they have declined such benefit to the prisoners. For instance a direction for concurrent running of the sentence has been declined by the Gujarat High Court in Sumlo @ Sumla Himla Bhuriya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 2007 Crl.L.J. 612 that related to commission of offences at three different places resulting in three different prosecutions before three different CourtsApplying the principle of single transaction referred to above to the above fact situations we are of the view that each one of the loan transactions/financial arrangements was a separate and distinct transaction between the complainant on the one hand and the borrowing company/appellant on the other. If different cheques which are subsequently dishonoured on presentation, are issued by the borrowing company acting through the appellant, the same could be said to be arising out of a single loan transaction so as to justify a direction for concurrent running of the sentences awarded in relation to dishonour of cheques relevant to each such transaction. That being so, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant in each case relevant to the transactions with each company referred to above ought to run concurrently. We, however, see no reason to extend that concession to transactions in which the borrowing company is different no matter the appellant before us is the promoter/Director of the said other companies also. Similarly we see no reason to direct running of the sentence concurrently in the case filed by the State Bank of Patiala against M/s Sabhyata Plastics and M/s Rahul Plastics which transaction is also independent of any loan or financial assistance between the State Financial Corporation and the borrowing companies. We make it clear that the direction regarding 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 of the Cr.P.C. 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.