Prabhu Dayal Rajput vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sr.

No.","Case No./ R.T.

No.","Amount of The

Cheque",Sentence,"Compensation

(in rupees)

1.,11459/2008,"20,00,000/-",1 year,"30,00,000/-

2.,7478/2009,"2,00,000/-",1 year,"3,40,000/-

3.,7381/2009,"25,000/-",1 year,"46,000/-

4.,8858/2009,"6,00,000/-",1 year,"9,10,000/-

5.,10769/2009,"2,00,000/-",1 year,"4,10,000/-

6.,4522/2009,"4,00,000/-",1 year,"6,10,000/-

7.,23159/2008,"1,00,000/-",8 months,"1,70,000/-

8.,23161/2008,"4,00,000/-",8 months,"6,25,000/-

9.,23164/2008,"3,00,000/-",8 months,"4,70,000/-

10.,23167/2008,"3,00,000/-",8 months,"4,70,000/-

11.,8914/2009,"1,50,000/-",1 year,"2,60,000/-

12.,5099/2009,"2,00,000/-",1 year,"3,30,000/-

13.,1216/2012,"2,11,000/-",1 year,"2,70,000/-

14.,4548/2009,"2,00,000/-",6 months,"3,00,000/-

15.,7114/2009,"2,50,000/-",1 year,"4,10,000/-

16.,11039/2009,"2,50,000/-",1 year,"4,10,000/-

17.,11038/2009,"2,50,000/-",1 year,"4,00,000/-

would take many long years.,,,,

On behalf of the respondent/State contentions are opposedvehemently and it is submitted that the petitioner has acquired huge wealth by his,,,,

criminal acts and he is not entitled to such benefits.,,,,

On behalf of the respondent No.14, learned counsel hasopposed the contentions stating that the petitioner has committed several offences which",,,,

indicates he is a habitual offender and he is not likely to improve himself. Therefore, he should suffer the sentences independently.",,,,

Perused the record. The petitioner has been sentenced in 17 casesunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for different,,,,

transactions. These are known to the Court. It may be possible that he might have been acquitted in other cases and might not have mentioned,,,,

about other criminal cases which are pending against him.,,,,

Provision of Section 427Â of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised at thetime of passing of sentence against the offender who has already undergone,,,,

another sentence should run concurrently. The general rule is that a sentence commences to run from the time of its being passed but Section 427 of,,,,

the Cr.P.C. creates an exception in the case of persons already undergoing imprisonment and postpone the operation of the subsequent sentence until,,,,

after expiry of the previous sentence.,,,,

The power conferred on the Court under Section 427 to orderconcurrent sentence is discretionary. The salutary principle adopted by the Court is,,,,

the totality of the sentences. This provision is opposite to Section 75 of the IPC. Section 75 of the IPC provides that whoever having been,,,,

convicted by a Court for an offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of the Cr.P.C. with imprisonment of either description for a,,,,

term of three years or upwards. This Section does not constitute a separate offence but only imposes liability to enhance the punishment for certain,,,,

offences, if convicted for the same offence.",,,,

On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on thedecision in the case of Bension v. State of Kerala, (2016) 10 SCC 307, wherein the",,,,

accused was given the benefit of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C., for he was found guilty of offenes punishable under Sections 414 and 379 of the",,,,

IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently but the sentences of fine and the default sentences are maintained.,,,,

Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on thejudgment of this Court dated 01.09.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1549/2011",,,,

(Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju v. The State of MP) wherein the benefit of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. has been granted to the applicant therein who was,,,,

sentenced for four offences under Section 392 of the IPC.,,,,

When the two offences are akin or intimately connected, thatfactor could be a special reason for ordering the two sentences to run concurrently.",,,,

Where in prosecution for offences punishable under ection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in different trials for dishonour of different cheques,",,,,

different sentences were awarded, refusal to issue direction that sentences awarded shall run concurrently is just and proper.",,,,

In the present case, there are seventeen different cheques issued to different complainants have been dishonoured known to the Court and the",,,,

petitioner has been sentenced. There are different transactions and different criminal cases were registered against him which have been decided by,,,,

different judgments, the sentences cannot be directed to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. In this regard, reference can be made to",,,,

the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs, AIR 1988 SC 2143.",,,,

In the case of V.K. Bansal v. The State of Haryana and Another, (2013) 7 SCC 211 it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that where",,,,

different cheques were issued by a borrower company through appellant-accused, which subsequently stood dishonoured on presentation and",,,,

consequently appellant-accused was sentenced for offence under S.138 of NI Act, it can be regarded as arising out of same loan transaction,",,,,

justifying direction of concurrent running of sentences But where another borrower company also issued such cheques through the same appellant,,,,

accused, it would constitute a separate and independent transaction and sentence awarded to the appellant accused under Section 138 of the",,,,

NegotiableInstruments Act cannot be directed to run concurrently with sentenceawarded in the first case.,,,,

In view of the preceding analysis, it would not be appropriate to grant benefit of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.",,,,

Accordingly, this petition being sans merit, stands dismissed.",,,,