STATE OF PUNJABversusMADAN LAL

                       [2009] 3 S.C.R. 1175


                       STATE OF PUNJAB                             A
                                v.
                           MADAN LAL
                (Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2004)
                         MARCH 5, 2009
                                                                   B
      [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
                  AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

         Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s.138 - Conviction
    under - Matter related to different cheques issued by C
    accused-respondent to complainant party towards which
    separate complaints were filed - Application in terms of s.482
    rlw s.427 CrPC with prayer to the effect that the quantum of
    punishment awarded to respondent be permitted to run
~   concurrently in respect of the three convictions and sentences D
    imposed - Application allowed by High Court - Justification
    of - Held: Justified - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
    s.482 rlw s.427 and s.428 - Sentence I Sentencing -
    Concurrent sentence.
                                                                   E
        State of Maharashtra v. Najakat alias Mubarak Ali (2001)
    6 SCC 311 and Mohd. Akthar alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v.
~   Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmadabad and
    Others AIR (1988) SC 2143, relied on.
                                                                   F
                        Case Law Reference:

        (2001) s sec 311           relied on           Para 4

        AIR (1988) SC 2143         relied on           Para 5
                                                                   G
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 529 of 2004.
        From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2002 of the
    High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
                              1175                                 H
    1176         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009] 3 S.C.R.


A Msc. No. 33774 of 2002.

           Kuldip Singh for the Appellant.

           Anita Gupta for the Respondent.

B          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. The State of Punjab is in
    appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the
    Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the application filed
c   in terms of Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Code of
    Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The prayer was
    to the effect that the quantum of punishment awarded may be
    permitted to run concurrently in respect of the three convictions
    and sentences imposed.
D
       2. The convictions were in terms of Section 138 of the
  Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the 'Act'). The High
  Court noted that all the transactions related to the family of the
  respondent and the matter related to different cheques issued
  by the respondent to the complainant party. For this purpose
E separate complaints were filed. The High Court accordingly
  directed that the sentences imposed by learned Additional
  Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and Sub Divisional Judicial
  Magistrate, Khanna were to run concurrently.

F         3. According to the State the judgment of the High Court
    is erroneous.

        4. In the impugned judgment of the High Court, reference
    was made to the decision of this court in Mohd. Akthar alias
G Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs
    6Prevention), Ahmadabad and Others (AIR 1988 SC 2143)
    wherein it was held as under :-

              "The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the
        so called transactions rule for concurrent sentences. If a
H
                STATE OF PUNJAB v. MADAN LAL                       1177
                    [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

          given transaction constitutes two offences under two             A
          enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive
          sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent
          sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction
          relating to offence is shot the same or the facts constituting
          the two offences are quite different."                           B

           5. The majority view in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat
      alias Mubarak Ali [2001 (6) SCC 311] was to similar effect.
      Paragraphs 14 to 18 in the above case it was held as follows:

          "14. The purpose of Section 428 of the Code is also for C
...       advancing amelioration to the prisoner. We may point
           out that the section does not contain any indication that if
          the prisoner was in jail as an under-trial prisoner in a
          second case the benefit envisaged in the section would
          be denied to him in respect of the second case. However, D
          learned counsel for the appellant contended that the words
          of the same case in the section would afford sufficient
          indication that the benefit is intended to cover only for one
          case and not more than that. It must be remembered that
          the ideology enshrined in Section 428 was introduced for E
          the first time only in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
          For understanding the contours of the legislative measure
          involved in that section, it is advantageous to have a look
          at the Objects and Reasons for bringing the above
          legislative provision. We therefore extract the same here: F

                 "The Committee has noted the distressing fact that
          in many cases accused persons are kept in prison for very
          long period as under-trial prisoners and in some cases
          the sentence of imprisonment ultimately awarded is a             G
          fraction of the period spent in jail as under-trial prisoner.
          Indeed, there may even be cases where such a person is
          acquitted. No doubt, sometimes courts do take into
          account the period of detention undergone as under-trial
          prisoner when passing sentence and occasionally the              H
    1178         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009) 3 S.C.R.


A          sentence of imprisonment is restricted to the period
           already undergone. But this is not always the case so
           that in many cases the accused person is made to suffer
           jail life for a period out of all proportion to the gravity of
           the offence or even to the punishment provided in the
B          statute. The Committee has also noted that a large
           number of persons in the overcrowded jails of today are
           under-trial prisoners. The new clause seeks to remedy this
           unsatisfactory state of affairs. The new clause provides for
           the setting off of the period of detention as an under-trial
c          prisoner against the sentence of imprisonment imposed
           on him. The Committee trusts that the provision contained
           in the new clause would go a long way to mitigate the evil."     ...
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)
D           15. The purpose is therefore clear that the convicted person
           is given the right to reckon the period of his sentence of
           imprisonment from the date he was in jail as an under-trial
           prisoner. In other words, the period of his being in
           jail as an under-trial prisoner would be added as a part of
E           the period of imprisonment to which he is sentenced. We
           may now decipher the two requisites postulated in Section
           428 of the Code:

           (1) During the stage of investigation, inquiry or trial of a
F          particular case the prisoner should have been in jail at least
           for a certain period.

           (2) He should have been sentenced to a term of
           imprisonment in that case.
G          16. If the above two conditions are satisfied then the
           operative part of the provision comes into play i.e. if the
           sentence of imprisonment awarded is longer than the
           period of detention undergone by him during the stages
           of investigation, inquiry or trial, the convicted person need
H
                    STATE OF PUNJAB v. MADAN LAL                        1179
                        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

         "'   undergo only the balance period of imprisonment after A
              deducting the earlier period from the total period of
              imprisonment awarded. The words "if any" in the Section
              amplifies that if there is no balance period left after such
              deduction the convict will be entitled to be set free from
              jail, unless he is required in any other case. In other words, B
              if the convict was in prison, for whatever reason, during the
              stages of investigation, inquiry or trial of a particular case
         .,
              and was later convicted and sentenced to any term of
              imprisonment in that case the earlier period of detention
              undergone by him should be counted as part of the c
              sentence imposed on him.

              17. In the above context it is apposite to point_ out that very
              often it happens when an accused is convicted in one case
              under different counts of offences and sentenced to
              different terms of imprisonment under each such count, all        D
              such sentences are directed to run concurrently. The
               idea behind it is that the imprisonment to be suffered by
              him for one count of offence will, in fact and in effect be
              imprisonment for other count as well.
                                                                                E
              18. Reading Section 428 of the Code in the above
              perspective, the words 'of the same case' are not to be
              understood as suggesting that the set off is allowable only
              if the earlier jail life was undergone by him exclusively for
              the case in which the sentence is imposed. The period             F
    ..        during which the accused was in prison subsequent to the
              inception of a particular case, should be credited towards
              the period of imprisonment awarded as sentence in that
              particular case. It is immaterial that the prisoner was
              undergoing sentence of imprisonment in another case also          G
              during the said period. The words "of the same case" were
              used to refer to the pre-sentence period of detention
              undergone by him. Nothing more can be made out of the
'             collocation of those words." (Per Justice Thomas)
                                                                                H
    1180         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 3 S.C.R.


A        6. Justice Phukan agreed with the view expressed by
    Justice Thomas and observed in Para 44 as follows:

           "The only question which according to me needs
           consideration is the true effect of the expression "same
B          case" as appearing in Section 428 of the Code of Criminal
           Procedure. The provision is couched in clear and
           unambiguous language and states that the period of
           detention which it allows to be set off against the term of
           imprisonment imposed on the accused on conviction must
           be one undergone by him during investigation, enquiry or
c          trial in connection with the "same case" in which he has
           been convicted. Any other period which is not connected
           with the said case cannot be said to be reckonable for set
           off. The view of learned Brother Mr. Justice Thomas
           according to me accords the legislative intent. Acceptance
D          of any other view would mean necessary (sic necessarily)
           either adding or subtracting words to the existing provision,
           which would not be a proper procedure to be adopted
           while interpreting the provision in question."

E       7. Above being the position, the appeal is without merit.
    deserves dismissal which we direct.

    B.B.B.                                         Appeal dismissed.

                                                                           ...