Suresh Kumar v. Surender Singh And ANR


  

  !"#"$"%""

"
"$ " &
'

() $
$$ *&+&   , ,- (" &&&&&   ., , , $,  "  &&&&&, $, &
'

()  , ,- (" &&&&&   ., , , $,  "  &&&&&, $, &
/'

()  , ,- (" &&&&&   ., , , $,  "  &&&&&, $, "$ 0&
0'

()  , ,- (" &&&&&   ., , , $,  "  &&&&&, $,
"(*  1#2(&!

,
,"$ (

2&
 



 



 

 

     


,"$ (

23!



!

    "  #

 !

  45 % "     #  % )* %)%+  

 , #

 !'    #  %- )% %).

 %. )% %).

,  # / 

   '# /

 0"1%2."%)3 0"1%2-"%)3 0"1%2*"%)3 0"1%-)"%)3  !  

# #     



3.

#' /

 .. 5  6 ..67



!    8 %)))))9"

! 8 +)))))9"

 ! 

31-537 
 


 *         ! #



!   !



  ! #  + !  #       '   !  #    






  $  


 8 

 : # ;
 



 ! ' ! $  #   !

 "465  <  

 !  =  !

+.% 
 ## 


 #    #  - /  #  


 

"



!!

"

 "

"!  !!

.

(1)When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence :Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.

(2)When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

.

&  #


 ! !

##  

0
     

 <      # '

'   ! <   

   &  <  

'" 5%7


 !

##     

   &  !  0!   

 <      * / #"


$ %&

'() 
 "*+



   !&  ,


 ")""


( -..  #




  '  

  " #    / #    ! 

!  #  !#     #         #    # !    ) '  !   + / *  +

 !% 0
   !

3.

/  ..

  ' '    ! ' #


 < '      # ! 

   

      # 

 <  

"

14. In #"12 case (supra) this Court relied upon the decision in
$ %&

2 case (supra) and affirmed the direction of the High Court for the sentences to run concurrently. That too was a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The State was aggrieved of the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently and had appealed to this Court against the same. This Court, however, declined interference with the order passed by the High Court and upheld the direction issued by the High Court.

15. In conclusion, we may say that the legal position favours exercise of discretion to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction no matter different complaints in relation thereto may have been filed as is the position in cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by the borrower towards repayment of a loan to the creditor.

 /  "% &/) +

 !#   03

..

 . < 

    !

          !

  <  ! !

##      #    

  # <#  


 



     '  


%

/ !  =

+.% 
       <  

+%-57 
 # #   ! #  !   

+%-57  = #   

+%-57  8   # '    <  !,&4)

#" 1 -5.

3   ' 

# 

# !      


  %)5%7   / # >    

   > & '#  #   9

   +  # !

 ! <    !



 '     !  !  '" 

1  ! 

  # 

   

&  ?  # !  

9  !

    #  

 



+
2 /  6 #"

 !7 ,  5  6'

  !#

  @



<



'   #    

=#       = # 



 #      #



 ' !   #     ! '#

      <      -

 6'



 " $

 !
,
(  88        

=#     #   

 # !

# !     

 #  <  # # 

  #   

 !

     = ' '!  !

     .

 



## 

 =  !

 !  

  #       #

  &   !

 # 

  B ' # ?B     

  !



 ' 

  '

7


#      *

 .

  !

* &=#   '    !  # 

  #  

 < 

# 

 #     %) @ 



"     

    =#    #   

%   !  $  

%%
#

    

',"$ (

2) &+&    !

 sham Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No