SABINA,J. - (1.) Vide this order above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of.
(2.) Petitioner had faced trial in two complaints filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with regard to dishounour of cheques in question. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in both the cases vide judgments/orders dated 18.02.2013. Appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the Appellate Court vide orders dated 06.06.2017. Hence, the present petitions by the petitioner.
(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act as awarded by the courts below. Learned counsel has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment in both the complaints be ordered to run concurrently. Parties are the same in both the complaints. Petitioner is in custody for the last one year. In-fact, cheques in question had been handed over to the complainant by way of security. In support of his arguments learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya and Anr. Criminal Appeal Nos. 988-989 Of 2016 [Arising Out Of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.6226-27 Of 2016) decided on 28.10.2016 , wherein it was held as under:- "In a more recent decision of this Court in Benson v. State of Kerala - Criminal Appeal No. 958 of 2016 (since disposed of on 03.10.2016) and the accompanying appeals, arising from the conviction of the appellant from his prosecution on the offences proved, this Court in the singular facts as involved and having regard to the duration of his incarceration and the remission earned by him, extended the benefit of such discretion and directed that the sentences awarded to him in those cases would run concurrently. It was noticeably recorded that the offences in the cases under scrutiny had been committed on the same day. The benefit of the discretion was accorded to the appellant therein referring as well to the observation in V.K. Bansal (supra) that it is difficult to lay down any straight jacket approach in the matter and that a direction that the subsequent sentence would run concurrently or not, would essentially depend on the nature of the offence or offences and the overall fact situation. Understandably, the appellant was required to serve the default sentence as awarded with the direction that if the fine imposed had been deposited, the default sentence or sentences would run consecutively. Reverting to the facts as obtained in the present appeal, we are of the comprehension, on an appreciation thereof as well as the duration of the appellant's custody, as is evidenced by the certificate to that effect, that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the discretion contained in Section 427 of the Code. In arriving at this conclusion we have, as required, reflected on the nature of the transactions between the parties thereto, the offences involved, the sentences awarded and the period of detention of the appellant as on date. It is thus ordered that the substantive sentences of 10 months simple imprisonment awarded to the appellant in the two complaint cases referred to hereinabove would run concurrently. Needless to say, the appellant would have to serve the default sentences, if the fine by way of compensation, as imposed, has been paid by him. The appeals are thus allowed to this extent. The appellant would be entitled to all consequential reliefs with regard to his release from custody as available in law based on this determination.";