IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2937 of 2008()
1. O.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, OTTAPLACKAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.C.BAVU, S/O.POULOSE, MANGALATH
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REP:BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2937 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and
sentenced in two different prosecutions, both under Section 138
of the N.I. Act and those were launched by two different
complainants. The allegations related to two different cheques.
2. The petitioner challenged the verdict of guilty,
conviction and sentence. The challenge was turned down.
Leniently and indulgently the substantive sentence of
imprisonment till rising of court as also directions for payment of
compensation were imposed in two different cases. Default
sentences were also imposed in the two cases. The petitioner did
not pay the compensation amounts. The default sentences are
being executed now. The default sentence is for S.I. for three
months in both cases. The petitioner has already served
imprisonment for three months in the first case. He is being
detained to undergo imprisonment in the later case. The
petitioner prays that there may be a direction that the petitioner
Crl.M.C.No. 2937 of 2008
2
need undergo the default sentences in the two different cases only
concurrently and not consecutively. The orders passed in the revision
are not produced . I therefore wanted the counsel to explain to me the
nature of the relief which the petitioner is seeking and the above is the
statement of facts given by the counsel for the petitioner.
3. I find absolutely no justification in the prayer. Offences
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been committed against two
different individuals in respect of two different cases, which relate to
two different cheques. I find no merit in the contention that the default
sentences must be directed to run concurrently. The petitioner has no
claim in equity, law or justice to plead that the default sentences in
respect of offences committed against different individuals in respect
of different cheques imposed in two different cases must be directed to
run concurrently.
4. This Crl.M.C. is without any merit and is consequently
dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
tm Judge
Crl.M.C.No. 2937 of 2008
3