V. K. .BANSAL versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

V. K. .BANSAL versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Where prosecutions under s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise out of cheques issued in the course of repayment of loans/financial assistance by one company, the sentences for those cases may run concurrently as they stem from a single transaction between that company and the complainant; however, where the borrower companies are different, though a common director is involved, each such series of transactions and convictions is distinct, and sentences must run consecutively. The discretion under s.427 Cr.P.C. should be applied to permit concurrency only to sentences within the same transaction or set of transactions for a particular company, not across different entities. Default...

Parties
Appellant: V. K. Bansal; Respondents: State of Haryana and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Convictions and Sentences Under S.138 NI Act, Affirmed by High Court
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed
Legal Topics
Negotiable Instruments Act S.138, Concurrent Running of Sentences, Code of Criminal Procedure S.427
Criminal Law Negotiable Instruments Act S.138 Concurrent Running of Sentences Code of Criminal Procedure S.427

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V. K. Bansal

Appellant

State of Haryana and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Convictions and Sentences Under S.138 NI Act, Affirmed by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentences imposed under s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in several cases arising from different loan transactions to different companies, but common director, should run concurrently or consecutively as per section 427 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

Where prosecutions under s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise out of cheques issued in the course of repayment of loans/financial assistance by one company, the sentences for those cases may run concurrently as they stem from a single transaction between that company and the complainant; however, where the borrower companies are different, though a common director is involved, each such series of transactions and convictions is distinct, and sentences must run consecutively. The discretion under s.427 Cr.P.C. should be applied to permit concurrency only to sentences within the same transaction or set of transactions for a particular company, not across different entities. Default...

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed

Orders

  • Substantive sentences awarded to the appellant in criminal complaint cases arising from the loan transaction between Haryana Financial Corporation and Arawali Tubes Ltd. shall run concurrently.
  • Substantive sentences awarded to the appellant in criminal complaint cases between Haryana Financial Corporation and Arawali Alloys Ltd. shall run concurrently.