V.K. Bansal V/s State of Haryana and Ors.

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2013-07-05
Case No: 836-851 OF 2013
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: T.S. Thakur & Gyan Sudha Misra
Subject: Criminal Law - Life Imprisonment
Statutes / Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Section: S. 427
Bench Strength: Double Bench
State of Appellant(s): Haryana
Case Note / Description :

 It provides that such imprisonment orimprisonment 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. Section 427 (1) of the Code, stipulates a general rule to be followed except in three situations, one falling under the proviso to sub-s (1) to s. 427 i.e. where the person concerned is sentenced to imprisonment by an order u/s. 122 in default of furnishing security which is not the position in the case at hand
the second falling under sub-s (2) where a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonmentfor a term or imprisonment for life
it provides that the subsequent sentence shall in such a case run concurrently with such previous sentence
and the third where the court directs that the sentences shall run concurrently. It is manifest from s. 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. Whether or not a direction ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence (s) 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**. [Para 8-10] *State of Punjab v. Madan Lal 2009 (3) SCR 1175 = (2009) 5 SCC 238
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 747 = (1988) 4 SCC 183 and Mulaim Singh v. State 1974 Crl. L.J. 1397 - referred to. **Sumlo ALIAS Sumla Himla Bhuriya and OTHERS v. State of Gujarat and OTHERS 2007 Crl.L.J. 612 and State of Gujarat v. Zaverbhai Kababhai 1996 Crl.L.J. 1296 - referred to. 1.2 The legal position favours exercise of discretion to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction no matter different complaints in relation thereto may have been filed as is the position in cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by the borrower towards repayment of a loan to the creditor. [Para 15] 1.3 The 15 cases at hand against the appellant fall in three distinct categories. The transactions forming the basis of the prosecution relate to three different corporate entities who had either entered into loan transactions with the State Financial Corporation or taken some other financial benefit like purchase of a cheque from the appellant that was on presentation dishonoured. Applying the principle of single transaction 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 transaction with each company ought to run concurrently. However, there is no reason to extend that concession to transactions in which the borrowing company is different no matter the appellant before the Court is the promoter/Director of the said other companies also. Similarly, there is no reason to direct running of the sentence concurrently in the case filed by the State Bank of Patiala which transaction is also independent of any loan or financial assistance between the State Financial Corporation and the borrowing companies. Ordered accordingly. [Para 16 - 17] 1.4 It is made 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, because the provisions of s. 427 of the Cr.P.C. do not, permit a direction for the concurrent running of the substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. [Para 17] Case Law Reference 2009 (3) SCR 1175 referred to para 7 2007 Crl.L.J. 612 referred to para 10 1996 Crl.L.J. 1296 referred to para 11 1974 Crl. L.J. 1397 referred to para 12 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 747 referred to para 13. 

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)