Shabeg Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Ritu Bahri, J.—This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 62415 of 2013 in/and Crl. Revision No. 3245 of 2012 and Crl. Revision

Nos.3246 and 3247 of 2012, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the petitions.

Crl. Misc. No. 62415 of 2013

This application has been filed for ordering the sentences to run concurrently in complaint No. 1128 dated 24.12.2005 titled as ''Tarsem Lal v.

Shabeg Singh'', complaint No. 1130 dated 24.12.2005, titled as ''Tarsem lal v. Shabeg Singh'' and complaint No. 3595 dated 24.12.2005 titled

as ''Smt. Gulshan Rani v. Shabeg Singh.

The petitioner has been convicted in aforesaid three complaints u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years in each case. He is required to undergo six years in total. The petitioner is 67 years of age and is

handicapped to the extent of 80%. He has suffered this disability in Indo-Pak war in the year 1971 and now is unable to perform his daily routine

activities.

The undisputed facts in all the three petitions i.e. Crl. Revision Nos. 3245, 3246 and 3247 of 2012 are that the accused-petitioner Shabeg

Singh had taken a loan of Rs. 16,00,000/- from complainant-Tarsem Lal in the month of April, 2004. He was known to him for the last more than

30-35 years and had cordial relations with him. He had assured complainant that he will repay the said amount. On making a demand by the

complainant, he paid back Rs. 43,000/- and agreed to pay remaining amount of Rs. 15,57,000/- within a short period. He issued three cheques

i.e. cheque bearing No. 340713 dated 14.10.2005 for Rs. 7,55,000/-, No. 340715 dated 15.10.2005 for Rs. 1,77,000/- and No. 175035 dated

14.10.2005 for Rs. 6,25,000/-. On presentation, all these cheques were dishonoured.

As per the documentary evidence (Ex.CW1/1), the petitioner made an application to the Gas Agency stating that he will sell some land or will

get the loan from his friend for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the said purpose. His affidavit (Ex.CW1/4) is to the effect that he has taken a loan of

Rs. 5,00,000/- with simple rate of interest at 12% per annum from his friend Tarsem Lal son of Dharam Lal, resident of Algo Kothi, Tehsil Patti,

District Amritsar (complainant-respondent No. 2). The signatures on the cheques were admitted and there is no complaint to any authority that the

said cheques had been misused. Thereafter, presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act, was drawn against the accused, as he had miserably failed to

rebut the presumption.

The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of

Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each in all the three complaints, out of which present

petitions i.e. Crl. Revision Nos.3245 to 3245 of 2012, have arisen. The first Appellate Court has also upheld the conviction of the petitioner vide

separate judgments dated 08.08.2012.

During the pendency of these revision petitions, Rs. 5,00,000/- were deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court and vide order dated

12.03.2013, the trial Court was directed to release the said amount to the complainant-respondent No. 2. However, subsequent installments of

Rs. 5,00,000/- per month could not be made and thereafter, the petitioner surrendered in custody. This fact has been affirmed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Amritsar, vide letter dated 29.05.2013, which is available on the record.

The short point for consideration is, ""whether the sentences in all the three criminal revisions (Crl. Revision Nos.3245 to 3247 of 2012) can run

concurrently.

This aspect has been considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana and others, 2013 (3) RCR (Criminal)

In this case, the prosecution was related to three different corporate entities, who had entered into loan transactions with the State Financial

Corporation or taken some other financial benefits. The cheques issued by the appellant, in that case, on presentation were dishonoured. There

were 15 cases, in which the appellant had been convicted and awarded sentence. There were three companies acting through director V.K.

Bansal i.e. M/s. Arawali Tubes Ltd., M/s. Arawali Alloys Ltd. and Sabhayata Plastics Pvt. Ltd. The cheques were issued by Sabhayata Plastics

Pvt. Ltd. in favour of State Bank of Patiala. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that with regard to the cheques, issued by the two companies i.e.

M/s. Arawali Tubes and M/s. Arawali Alloys to the said financial corporation by the director V.K. Bansal, for all intents and purposes, shall be

treated to be one transaction and the sentences for dishonour of the cheques ought to run concurrently. However, concurrent running of sentence

was limited to substantive sentences only. The sentences which the appellant had been directed to undergo in default of payment of

fine/compensation was not to be affected by the direction. As per Section 427 Cr.P.C., it does not permit a direction for the concurrent running of

the substantive sentences with sentences, awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation.

In the facts of the present case, three cheques were issued by the petitioner for discharge of his loan amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/-, which he

had taken from the complainant-respondent No. 2. After making a part payment of Rs. 43,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- during the pendency of these

petitions, he had been unable to make payment of the remaining amount and has, thereafter, surrendered on before the Court. Applying the ratio of

the judgment delivered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in V.K. Bansal''s case (supra) to the facts of the present case, this application is allowed

and a direction is given that all the three sentences, awarded to the accused-petitioner in complaint No. 1128 dated 24.12.2005 titled as Tarsem

Lal v. Shabeg Singh, complaint No. 1130 dated 24.12.2005, titled as Tarsem lal v. Shabeg Singh and complaint No. 3595 dated 24.12.2005

titled as Smt. Gulshan Rani v. Shabeg Singh, shall run concurrently. But, there is no direction for concurrent running of the substantive sentence,

which has been awarded, in default of payment of fine and compensation.

Crl. Misc. application stands allowed accordingly.

Crl. Revision Nos. 3245, 3246 and 3247 of 2012

Since the sentences, awarded to the petitioner in all the complaints, out of which present petitions have arisen, have been ordered to be run

concurrently, these petitions are disposed of accordingly.