Discretion of court to direct sentences to run concurrently

V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 211
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 427(1) - Discretion of court to direct sentences to run concurrently - When should be exercised - Court should
exercise its discretion judicially and not mechanically in each case, having regard to nature of offence and particular fact
situation - No straitjacket approach can be laid down - However, only substantive sentences can be directed to run
concurrently and sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation cannot be directed to run concurrently -
Single transaction rule - Where there was a single transaction constituting offences, even if different complaints were

filed in relation thereto, sentences can be directed to run concurrently - Where different cheques were issued by a
borrower company through appellant-accused, which subsequently stood dishonoured on presentation and consequently
appellant-accused was sentenced for offence under S. 138 of NI Act, it can be regarded as arising out of same loan
transaction, justifying direction of concurrent running of sentences - But where another borrower company also issued
such cheques through same appellant-accused, it would constitute a separate and independent transaction and
sentence awarded to appellant-accused under S. 138 of NI Act cannot be directed to run concurrently with sentence
awarded in the first case, (2013) 7 SCC 211-

Print Page