LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Show all posts
Sunday, July 21, 2013

Negotiable Instruments Act - Punishments -substantive punishments- concurrently - default of fine punishment- consecutively = whether the High Court was right in declining the prayer made by the appellant for a direction in terms of Section 427 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the sentences awarded to the appellant in connection with the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed against him to run concurrently. = Applying the principle of single transaction referred to above to the above fact situations we are of the view that each one of the loan transactions/financial arrangements was a separate and distinct transaction between the complainant on the one hand and the borrowing company/appellant on the other. If different cheques which are subsequently dishonoured on presentation, are issued by the borrowing company acting through the appellant, the same could be said to be arising out of a single loan transaction so as to justify a direction for concurrent running of the sentences awarded in relation to dishonour of cheques relevant to each such transaction. That being so, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant in each case relevant to the transactions with each company referred to above ought to run concurrently. We, however, see no reason to extend that concession to transactions in which the borrowing company is different no matter the appellant before us is the promoter/Director of the said other companies also. - We make it clear that the direction regarding concurrent running of sentence shall be limited to the substantive sentence only. The sentence which the appellant has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be affected by this direction. We do so because the provisions of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. do not, in our opinion, permit a direction for the concurrent running of the substantive sentences with sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation.= In the result, these appeals succeed but only in part and to the following extent: 1) Substantive sentences awarded to the appellant by the Courts of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hissar and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, in Criminal complaint cases No.269-II/97; No.549-II/97; No.393-II/97; No.371-II/97; No.372-II/97; No.373-II/97; No.877-II/96; No.880-II/96; No.878-II/96; No.876-II/96; No.879-II/96; No.485-II/96 relevant to the loan transaction between Haryana Financial Corporation and Arawali Tubes shall run concurrently. 2) Substantive sentences awarded to the appellant by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hissar in Criminal complaint cases No.156-II/1997 and No.396-II/1998 between Haryana Financial Corporation and Arawali Alloys relevant to the transactions shall also run concurrently; 3) Substantive sentences inter se by the Court of Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Hissar in the above two categories and that awarded in complaint case No.331-II/97 shall run consecutively in terms of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4) No costs.

›
               published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40532                                          REPORTABL...
Friday, September 7, 2012

"The assignment of a promissory note by the payee is a part of the "cause of action" within the meaning of S.20 (c), C.P.C. and the assignee can sue on it in the Court having jurisdiction where the assignment took place:

›
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO             SECOND APPEAL NO.598 OF 2011       24-08-2012 M.R.Venu Smt.Veluchuri La...
Wednesday, February 1, 2012

whether the consent of the complainant is required for compounding an offence like that off under sec.320 of Cr.P.C. due to non-abstante clause of sec.147 of N.I.ACT ?=this Court is unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant(s) that as a result of sanction of a scheme under Section 391 of the Companies Act there is an automatic compounding of offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act even without the consent of the complainant.

›
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPE...