BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10/10/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.633 of 2007 Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.634 of 2007 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 Ganesh Textiles through its Partner, G.Paulraj ... Petitioner Vs P.P.M.Sankaralinga Nadar Sons, through its one of the Partners, P.P.M.S.N.Murugesh ... Respondent Prayer Petitions filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.Nos.22 of 2006 and 23 of 2006 dated 15.03.2007 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Virudhunagar, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar, in C.C.No.156 of 2004 and 157 of 2004, dated 05.04.2006. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Muruganantham ^For Respondent ... Mr.N.Dilipkumar :ORDER
These Criminal Revision Case are focussed to set aside the judgment passed
in C.A.Nos.22 of 2006 and 23 of 2006 dated 15.03.2007 by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Virudhunagar, confirming the conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar, in
C.C.No.156 of 2004 and 157 of 2004, dated 05.04.2006.
2. The background facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the
disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:
C.C.Nos.156 and 157 of 2004 emerged on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar. After conducting separate trials, he pronounced
separate judgments on the one and the same day imposing sentences as under:
S.No.
C.C.No.
Conviction Recorded
Sentence Imposed
1
C.C.No.156 of 2004
U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in
default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
1
C.C.No.157 of 2004
U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in
default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such convictions, they
preferred appeals before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Virudhunagar and the appellate Court also confirmed the convictions recorded
and the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate.
4. As against which, the accused preferred these Criminal Revision Cases.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the revisions,
restricted his argument only to the extent that the sentences imposed in both
the cases may be ordered to run concurrently.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the complainant also who would submit
that for each case, two years substantive sentence of imprisonment is
contemplated and the learned Magistrate was kind enough in imposing one year in
each case and further leniency in this regard may not be tenable.
7. The learned Counsel for the complainant would also air the grievance of
the complainant that the total amount involved in this matter is Rs.16,25,000/-
(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only).
8. Be that as it may, here, on the one and the same day, both the
judgments were pronounced for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. A mere analysis of sentencing pattern that is
prevailing in India is considered, would at once make it crystal clear that as a
rule ordering concurrent sentences is a normal factor rather than awarding
consecutive sentences. If at all, any special circumstance is involved, in such
cases alone, the Courts have ordered sentences to run consecutively.
9. Here, the offences in both the matters are under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, committed by one and the same accused as against the
one and the same complainant and in such a case, I am of the considered opinion
that awarding concurrent sentences would meet the ends of justice irrespective
of the fact whether the amount involved was Rs.16,25,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs
and Twenty Five Thousand only). Accordingly, I am of the opinion that each of
the above substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner shall
run concurrently and no other variation is ordered.
10. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of.
Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2007 is closed.
rsb
To
1.Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(FTC), Virudhunagar.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar.