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.