Concurrent Sentences in Cheque Bounce Cases: Why “Multiple Transactions” Can Change Everything

Introduction: A Common but Costly Assumption

One of the most misunderstood aspects of cheque dishonour litigation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 relates not to conviction, but to sentencing. Accused persons, often directors, business owners, or professionals, frequently assume that even if multiple cases result in conviction, the courts will show leniency by directing that the sentences run concurrently.

This assumption is not only incorrect, but also dangerous.

Recent judicial pronouncements have decisively clarified that concurrent sentencing is not a matter of right, especially when dishonoured cheques arise from multiple commercial transactions spread over time. In such cases, courts are increasingly directing consecutive sentences, significantly escalating the penal exposure.

With the coming into force of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the legal position has now been statutorily realigned under Section 467 BNSS, replacing Section 427 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the core principle remains unchanged: judicial discretion governs concurrency, and discretion is exercised strictly, not sympathetically.

This article explains the law, judicial trends, and, most importantly, what it means for litigants and businesses facing multiple cheque bounce prosecutions.

The Legal Framework: Section 427 CrPC and Judicial Discretion

The issue of concurrent versus consecutive sentences is now governed by Section 467 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to and substantially replaces Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.The provision empowers courts to direct whether a sentence imposed on a subsequent conviction should run concurrently or consecutively with an earlier sentence.

What Section 467 BNSS Provides

Section 467 BNSS empowers the court to decide whether:

• A sentence imposed on a subsequent conviction shall
• run concurrently with the previous sentence, or
• run consecutively, that is, commence after the earlier sentence is completed.

This provision does not create any presumption in favor of concurrency. Instead, it vests pure discretion in the court to be exercised judicially based on:

• the nature of the offence,
• the factual matrix,
• the conduct of the accused, and
• the overall ends of justice.

In cheque dishonour cases, this discretion becomes especially critical because multiple complaints are often filed for different cheques, sometimes running into dozens of complaints.

The Turning Point: What Courts Really Meant in V.K. Bansal

The judgment in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 211 is frequently cited by accused persons seeking concurrency. The Supreme Court held the following:

• Where multiple complaints arise from a single transaction, courts may lean in favour of concurrent sentences.
• Even then, concurrency is not mandatory but discretionary.
• Only substantive sentences may run concurrently, not default sentences for non-payment of compensation.

What is often ignored is the crucial qualifier: The prosecution must arise out of a “single transaction.” This qualifier has become a decisive test.

Supreme Court’s Clarification: Multiple Transactions Mean Multiple Sentences

In a dismissal of Special Leave Petitions in K. Padamaja Rani v. State of Telangana & Anr., 2023 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6742 of 2023, decided on 28 July 2023, the Supreme Court drew a bright and unambiguous line.

The Court held that:

“Only when the conviction arises out of a single transaction, concurrent sentence would be merited. Where there are several transactions over a period of time… the accused can claim no benefit of the ratio in V.K. Bansal.”

This clarification decisively shuts the door on the mechanical reliance on V.K. Bansal in cases involving:

• Repeated commercial dealings
• Ongoing supply of goods or services
• Independent invoices
• Separate cheque issuances over time

The Court treated each dishonoured cheque, issued towards distinct commercial obligations, as a separate penal event.

High Court’s Reasoning: Substance Over Form

The reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court closely aligns with the approach taken by the Telangana High Court in K. Padamaja Rani v. State of Telangana.

In that case, the accused sought concurrent sentencing on the ground that multiple cheques were issued in the course of business dealings. The High Court rejected the plea after examining the factual matrix and held the following:

• Raw materials were supplied periodically.
• Liability accrued progressively.
• Cheques were issued on different dates.
• Each dishonour constituted an independent offence.

A continuing business relationship does not convert multiple transactions into a single transaction.

Understanding the “Single Transaction” Test

The phrase “single transaction” does not imply the following:

• same parties, or
• same business relationship, or
• same financial year.

Indicators of a Single Transaction

• One loan or advance.
• One consolidated liability was created.
• Multiple cheques were issued for the repayment of the same debt.
• No fresh consideration between cheques.

Indicators of Multiple Transactions

• Repeated supply of goods and services.
• Separate invoices or delivery schedules are required.
• Staggered accrual of liabilities.
• Cheques are issued on different dates for different obligations.

Conclusion: Precision Over Presumption

The jurisprudence on concurrent sentencing in cheque dishonour cases has attained settled doctrinal clarity. According to the court’s unambiguous rulings, concurrency is a narrowly defined exception that only applies when multiple convictions result from a single, indivisible transaction.

Accordingly, the legal strategy in cheque bounce litigation must evolve beyond a cheque-wise or complaint-wise defence and adopt a transaction-wise, holistic risk assessment at the earliest stage of the proceedings.