Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 665 (KAR)

G. Umesh v. D. Shivanna S/o Late Devaiah

2012-08-13

SUBHASH B.ADI

body2012
ORDER Subhash B. Adi, J.—The learned Government Pleader submitted that in this petition, the petitioner has sought for the sentences in C.O. Nos. 587, 588, 590, 591, 592, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 973, 974, 975, 976 and 977 of 2007 disposed of on 06.10.2008 to run concurrently and there is no provision to order for running the sentences concurrently in the case and submitted that the sentences have been confirmed in appeal. All these cases were filed for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Ace). The first respondent is the complainant. After the judgement of conviction, the accused and the complainant settled the matter and the complainant has received all the amounts due to him. However, by that time, the order of conviction was confirmed. By inadvertence, the petitioner herein could not make submission for running of the sentences concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant - respondent No. 1 submits that all the cases arise out of the same transaction and as against the amount due, the accused had given several cheques and since there were several cheques, separate criminal cases were filed and he has no objection for ordering the sentences to r-un concurrently. 3. The learned counsel for the accused also submits that though the accused has discharged the liability, he has served the sentence for last 79 days. Having regard to the nature of the offence and having regard to the parties having settled the matter and also having regard to the special circumstances, if the accused has already made payment and if the complainant has no objection, punishing the accused separately in each case and asking him to undergo sentences separately would be harsh and particularly, the offence being one punishable under Section 138 of the Act for dishonour of cheque. 4. Taking into consideration these circumstances, the petition is allowed. Sentences in C.O. Nos. 587, 588, 590, 591, 592, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 973, 974, 975, 976 and 977 of 2007 disposed of on 6.10.2008 shall run concurrently. However, it cannot be treated as application of interpretation of any rule or otherwise. Under the special circumstances, this order has been passed. If the petitioner has served higher sentence in any of the case, he shall be released forthwith. Copy of the order be issued by hand.