IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3418 of 2007()
1. PARTHASARATHY, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.G.SARANGADHARAN, S/O.GOPALAN,
... Respondent
2. SREERAJ, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,
3. G.KRISHNA PILLAI, SREEVIHAR,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :15/11/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 3418 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and
sentenced in three separate prosecutions, all under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act and initiated by three different complainants, i.e.
respondents 1 to 3 herein. Except that all the three cheques had
been issued by the petitioner as drawer and all the three cases are
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, there is admittedly no common
feature in these three cases. The verdicts of guilty, conviction
and sentence have now become final with the disposal of the
revision petitions filed by the petitioner herein. At this stage the
petitioner has come to this court with this petition under section
482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not paid the compensation
amount directed to be paid. Consequently he is now compelled
to undergo the default sentence. He has already been taken into
custody. As per the decisions against him now, he will have to
undergo the default sentence consecutively.
Crl.M.C.No. 3418 of 2007
2
2. The short prayer made by the petitioner in this petition is that
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to save him
from the trauma of having to undergo the default sentences
consecutively. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that
powers under Section 427 Cr.P.C. may be invoked in this proceedings
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and concurrency may be directed.
3. On merits I find no substance in the plea at all. The offences
are committed against three different individuals. In all the three cases
the petitioner faces only the substantive sentence of imprisonment till
rising of court. There is a direction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. that
compensation amount must be paid to the respective complainants.
There is also a default sentence imposed in all the three cases.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find absolutely
no reason which can persuade this court to direct that the default
sentences must be undergone concurrently. Maximum leniency has
already been shown to the petitioner. He has been sentenced to a
substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of court only. The
different complainants are to receive compensation. There is no
Crl.M.C.No. 3418 of 2007
3
rhyme, reason, principle or precedent, which can justify a direction
that the default sentences in the three different crimes must run
concurrently. The prayer cannot, in these circumstances, be allowed.
5. Having said so on merits, I must also take note of the decision
in M.R.Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2007 SC 568),
where the Supreme Court has observed that powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in an identical situation.
6. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm