Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
Shree Sainath Wires Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Pec Limited & Anr. on 20 December, 2016 cites

R.Mohan vs A.K. Vijaya Kumar on 3 July, 2012

10. The learned senior counsel has pointed out that the Court below went wrong while passing Rs.51 lakhs as compensation in each complaint case and further subjected the revisionist to default sentence in case of non-payment of the compensation. The compensation does not keep the head of default. However, according to the learned senior counsel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Mohan vs. A.K. Vijaya Kumar and A.K. Vijaya Kumar vs. R. Mohan, reported at 2012 (8) SCC 721 on this point has allowed the default sentence in case of failure/ non-payment of compensation amount by the accused person. She has further drawn the attention of this Court to Section 219 of Cr.P.C. and contends that while putting the criminal law into motion the liberty of the accused should be kept in mind. According to her, under Section 219 of Cr.P.C., three offences of the same kind can be charged together in one year indicating that the order on sentence should be concurrent and not separate in each complaint case. However, in the instant revision petitions, there are 18 convictions and the cheques issued were of the same date and pertaining to the same transaction and this ipso facto is sufficient to reach to the conclusion that the offence is one and the same and there are no distinct offences committed by the revisionists to impose Section 138 read with Section 141 of N.I. Act for different causes of actions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Shyam Pal vs Dayawati Besoya And Anr on 28 October, 2016

12. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that as far as substantive sentence is concerned, it should be concurrent. Where the transaction was same and the cheques were of the same date and evidence had taken place in one case, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate should had made the sentences concurrent. The learned senior counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and Another reported in 1988 4 SCC 183 and Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr. reported in 2016 SCCOnline SC 1208, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that, where second offence is similar to the first offence, then the sentence should be concurrent. Only where second offence is different and distinct from the first offence, the sentence should run consecutively. All the 18 sentences are arising from similar transaction therefore, sentence should have been concurrent and the revisionists should be sentenced to one year only. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that so far as the default sentences are concerned the default sentences must run consecutively and not concurrently.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 72 - A Roy - Full Document

M/S U Turn Housing Pvt Ltd & Anr vs State Of ( Gnct ) Of Delhi & Anr on 19 August, 2016

The aforesaid Section is a discretionary in nature and this court has already said so in the case of M/s U Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.(supra) and the Apex Court in the case of V.K. Bansal (supra) has made it clear that the concurrent running of the sentence should be limited only to substantive sentence and not qua against the default sentences.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - P S Teji - Full Document
1