Jail terms in different cases for same transaction will run concurrently: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has held that if a person convicted in different criminal cases arising out of a solitary transaction, the sentence cannot, but be held to run concurrently.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while ordering the immediate release of a Bengaluru-based businessman, who was convicted in a case of cheque bounce under Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.

The businessman Keshavamurthy, proprietor of A Keshavamurthy Enterprises, had purchased goods worth Rs 1.5 crore from Arihant Clothing Pvt Limited, Bengaluru in 2016. All eight cheques issued by him were dishonored and three complaints were filed against him in 2017 under section 138 of NI Act.

Krishnamurthy was convicted in all the three cases and the trial court imposed six months imprisonment in each of the cases. He challenged the conviction before all appellate courts and in February 2024, the apex court too affirmed the trial court's decision. On March 21, 2024, he was taken in custody by an order passed by the trial court.

Krishnamurthy moved the high court when he was not released from custody after September 20, 2024, on the ground that he has to serve sentence in the other two cases. He contended that the sentence upon convictions must run concurrently and he should be released from prison. He cited the apex court's decisions in Shyam Pal vs Dayawati Besoya and VK Bansal vs State of Haryana cases.

Justice Nagaprasanna noted that in the light of the decisions rendered by the apex court and also in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner is convicted in three different criminal cases arising out of a solitary transaction of Rs 1.5 crore, the sentence cannot, but be held to run concurrently.

“If the sentence is held to run concurrently, the petitioner has completed his sentence of six months imprisonment. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to hold that the petitioner is entitled to release from judicial custody, as the sentences were to run concurrently and on such concurrently running sentences, the imprisonment of the petitioner is now complete,” the court said.