NAVIN SINHA,J. - (1.) The substantive appeals against convictions were dismissed as withdrawn on 09.12.2016. Liberty was however granted, to approach this court again if required. On the application made, the special leave petition was resurrected.
(2.) The short question of law for consideration is, if the offences essentially constitute a single transaction, but have been split up by the prosecution into three separate cases, will the sentences imposed individually, run concurrently or consecutively? The issue stands covered by the decisions in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and Another, 2013(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 1052 : 2013(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 983 : 2013(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 680 : (2013) 7 SCC 211 followed in Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya, 2016(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 892 : 2016(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 790 : 2016(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 271 : (2016) 10 SCC 761 and Benson v. State of Kerala, 2016(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 602 : 2016(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 716 : (2016) 10 SCC 307.
(3.) The appellant was a Peon in the office of Sub Registrar, Vazhoor. He was alleged to have misappropriated L 92,225/- from public funds during 1995-1996, without making remittance in the Sub Treasury, creating false challans showing remittance. The Prosecution initiated under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under Sections 409, 465 and 471, I.P.C. was split up in three different cases, for the period 07.07.1992 to 29.12.1992 registered as C.C. No.21/2002, for the period 21.10.1994 to 31.07.1995 registered as C.C. No.22/2002 and for the period 12.12.1995 to 30.08.1996 C.C. No.23/2002 was registered. The three cases were tried jointly and common evidence was recorded.;