Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Piyush Chatterjee vs Abhijit Chowdhury @ Abhijit Chaudhury on 8 July, 2026
2026:CHC-AS:995
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
CRR 1137 of 2026
Piyush Chatterjee
Vs.
Abhijit Chowdhury @ Abhijit Chaudhury
For the petitioners : Mr. Kusal Kumar Mukherjee
: Mr. Diptangshu Basu
: Mr. Sayan Das
Heard on : 29.06.2026
Judgment on : 08.07.2026
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. In the instant application the petitioner has raised an issue
regarding the jurisdiction and inherent power of the High Court,
which specifically directed to examine whether the High Court,
while invoking its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.· read with
section 528 of BNSS can invoke section 427 Cr.P.C./467 of BNSS
to order that sentences awarded in three different cases shall run
concurrently. The Petitioner Piyush Chatterjee has challenged
sentence structure imposed in convictions seeking consolidation
1
2026:CHC-AS:995
of sentences to prevent undue hardship and to ensure justice.
2. The ACJM, Bidhannagore passed three judgments of
conviction and order of sentence on 28.11.2024 in
connection with three separate complaint cases being C. Case
No. 3014 of 2017, C. Case No. 3147 of 2018 and C. Case
No. 139 of 2019 all are in connection with proceeding under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short N.I Act).
The ordering portion of the aforesaid respective cases are as
follows:-
A. In complaint Case No. 3014 of 2017
The Accused, Piyush Chatterjee is hereby sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for a term of four months
coupled with payment of fine of RS. 4,50,000/-( Four
Lakhs Fifty thousands) only, within three months from
filing of this order, out of which the entire amount shall
be paid & disbursed as compensation u/s 357, Cr.P.C.
to the complainant, in default of payment of the
compensation amount, the complainant will be at
liberty to proceed against the accused under proviso to
section 421(1/b), CrPC in order to realize the said
amount.
B. In complaint Case No. 3147 of 2018
The accused, Piyush Chatterjee is hereby sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for a term of four months
coupled with payment of fine of Rs. 3,50,000/-(three
Lakhs fifty thousands) only, within three months
from filing of this order, out of which the entire amount
shall be paid & disbursed as compensation u/s 357,
Cr.P.C. to the complainant, in default of payment of the
compensation amount, the complainant will be at
liberty to proceed against the accused under proviso to
section 421(1/b), CrPC in order to realize the said
amount.
C. In complaint Case No. 139 of 2019
The accused, Piyush Chatterjee is hereby sentenced to
suffer simply imprisonment for a term of four months
coupled with payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-( One
Lakh fifty thousands) only, within three months from
filing of this order, out of which the entire amount2
2026:CHC-AS:995
shall be paid & disbursed as compensation u/s
357, CrP.C. to the complainant, in default of
payment of the compensation amount, the
complainant will be at liberty to proceed against the
accused under proviso to section 421(1/b), CrPC in
order to realize the said amount.
3. In all the above mentioned cases the complaint
was lodged by the same complainant against the same
accused person namely the petitioner herein. The Trial
court passed the aforesaid conviction orders in three
complaint cases on the same date and there is no finding
in the order of sentences that the sentences shall run
concurrently.
4. The petitioner’s counsel herein argued that
the petitioner was convicted for four months in respect of
each of the complaint case and he was taken to custody
on 06.09.2025 and since then he has been languishing
in custody for about ten months. Even in the absence of
passing order of sentence to run concurrently in all the
three complain cases, the petitioner has already
undergone more than 3/4th of the total sentence awarded
for three cases, which can at best be 12 months.
5. He further argued that it appears from the fact of
complaint case no.139 of 2019 that the complainant gave
a loan to the accused person due to their friendly
relationship and the accused person issued a cheque
for the part payment of the loan, amounting to Rs. 1
lakh which got dishonoured on the ground of ‘account
3
2026:CHC-AS:995
closed’. In respect of complaint case no. 3147 of 2018 the
complainant filed complaint with the similar allegation
that he gave loan to the accused person due to friendly
relationship and the accused in course of part payment
of the loan, issued a cheque of Rs. 2.5 lakhs which got
dishonoured on the ground of ‘account closed’. In
respect of C. Case no. 3014 of 2017 the allegations levelled
in the complaint is that complainant gave loan to the
petitioner due to friendly relationship and towards part
payment of the said loan the accused had issued one
cheque of Rs. 3 lakh which got dishonoured on the same
ground ‘account closed’. Therefore in all the three
complaint cases the allegation is that the cheques were
given towards part payment of friendly loan advanced by
the complainant to the petitioner. It is argued, that the
aforesaid three complaint cases have arisen out of
successive transactions in a series between the same
parties and had been tried together on the basis of almost
same set of evidence.
6. He further argued that against the aforesaid three
conviction orders, the petitioner herein preferred appeal
before the learned Sessions Judge, against all the three
conviction orders but the Appellate court had rejected the
petitioners appeal on the ground of limitation and refused to
dispose of the same on merit.
4
2026:CHC-AS:995
7. While arguing the relationship between section 427(1)
and 482, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that
inherent power under section 482 is not confined or
limited by specific provisions like section 427(1). Drawing
from the Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, reported in
(1945) 47 Bom LR 245 and RP Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab,
reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 he submits that the inherent
power of the court are expansive and can be utilized to
achieve just outcome, specially in a situation where trial
court has failed to exercise discretionary power and when the
Appellate court dismissed petitioners prayer on the ground of
technicality and declined to decide the same on merit.
Therefore, High Court’s inherent power can very well be invoked
to run all the sentences passed in the aforesaid three criminal
proceedings concurrently, even without explicit direction made
by the Trial Court. He made a distinction between inherent
power and those granted by specific sections, affirming that
inherent power offers broad flexibility in ensuring justice and
therefore he has prayed for direction for releasing the accused
person namely petitioner herein, taking all the three aforesaid
sentences be run concurrently.
8. Before going further let me reproduce section 427 (1) of
the Cr.P.C. and section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
42 7. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another
offence.
(1) .When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is
sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for
life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the
5
2026:CHC-AS:995
expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced,
unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently
with such previous sentence :
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by
an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst
undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence
committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall
commence immediately.
482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
– Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers
of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
9. Needless to say that it is well settled that inherent power
of the high Court can be invoked sparingly and only when
there is a clear failure in the legal process or. an inherent
injustice, that cannot be rectified through existing statutory
provisions. It is no doubt true that while inherent powers
under section 482 Cr.P.C. are broad but they are not to
be invoked to interfere with sentencing protocols delineated in
other specific sections of the Cr.P.C. When a person is
convicted in separate proceedings for multiple bounced cheques,
generally each bounced cheques is treated as a distinct and
separate offence.
10. Recent judicial pronouncements have clarified that
concurrent sentencing is not a matter of right, specially
when dishonoured cheques arise for multiple commercial
transaction spread over time. In such cases Courts are
required to pass consecutive sentences. Section 427
empowers court to direct whether a sentence imposed on a
subsequent conviction should run concurrently or
consecutively with an earlier sentence. This provisions does
not create any presumption in favour of concurrency.
6
2026:CHC-AS:995
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 overall ends of
justice. In determining whether such relief can be granted,
the High Court is to evaluate whether the cheques were part
of the same transaction i.e. whether multiple cheques were
given for a single transaction, the overall facts
circumstances, severity of the cumulative punishment, the
conduct of the accused.
11. In V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC
211, the Supreme Court held in para 16 as follows:-
16. In conclusion, we may say that the legal position favours exercise of
discretion to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the
prosecution is based on a single transaction no matter different
complaints in relation thereto may have been filed as is the position in
cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by the borrower towards
repayment of a loan to the creditor.
12. In the said judgment it has also been made
clear that the direction regarding concurrent running
of sentence shall be limited to substantive sentences
only. The .sentence which the convict has been directed to
undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation, shall not
be affected by the said direction.
13. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid judgment
that in order to pass an order that the judgment shall run
concurrently, the petitioner must qualify ‘single transaction
test’ which is the decisive test because the said judgement
made it clear that multiple transactions mean multiple
sentences.
7
2026:CHC-AS:995
14. In a dismissal of the Special Leave petition in K
Padamaja Rani Vs. State of Telangana and anr. arising
out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) no. 6742 of 2023,
decided on 28th July, 2023 the Supreme Court made it
clear that only when the conviction arises out of the single
transaction, concurrent sentence would be merited. Where
there are several transaction over a period of time, the
accused is not entitled to benefit of the ratio in VK Banshal’s
Case (supra).
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of
Shyam Pal Vs. Dayawati Besoya and another reported in
(2016) 10 SCC 761 has held as follow:-
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that as both the
complaints filed by the respondents have arisen out of successive
transactions in a series between the same parties and had been tried
together on the basis of same set of evidence, the sentences awarded ought
to run concurrently, the High Court had failed to appreciate the same. It has
been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 25-2-2015 and if the
two substantive sentences are construed to run concurrently, he has served
not only the substantive sentences but also the sentence in default of fine as
on date. That the appellant comes from a poor financial background, as well
as is the sole bread earner of the family and that if the two sentences are to
run consecutively, he would suffer grave injustice, has been emphasised. No
argument, noticeably has been advanced, as abandoned before the High
Court as well, impeaching the conviction.
10. We have extended our required consideration to few facts and the
submissions made. The materials on record leave no manner of doubt that
the complaints filed by the respondents stem from two identical transactions
between the same parties where under the respondent had advanced a loan
of Rs 5 lakhs each to the appellant on two different dates against which the
latter had issued cheques to discharge his debt and that the cheques had
been dishonoured. The facts pleaded and proved do unassailably
demonstrate that the loans advanced had been in the course of a series of
transactions between the same parties on same terms and conditions.
Significantly in both the cases, following the conviction of the appellant
under Section 138 of the Act, the same sentences as well have been
awarded. There is thus an overwhelming identicalness in the features of
both the cases permitting, the two transactions, though undertaken at
different points of time, to be deemed as a singular transaction or two
segments of one transaction. This deduction understandably is in the
singular facts of the case. (emphasis added)
8
2026:CHC-AS:995
16. Therefore, it is clear that though under section 427
(1) of the Cr.P.C the court has the power of discretion to issue a
direction that a subsequent sentence shall run concurrently
with the previous sentence, the very nature of the power so
conferred predicates that the discretion would have to be
exercised along with judicial precedents and not in a mechanical
pedantic manner. The discretion is to be exercised strictly and
not sympathetically. In fact there is no cut and dried formula
for the court to follow in exercise of such power and the
justifiability or otherwise of the same would depend on the
nature of the offence or offences committed and the attending
facts and circumstances. It was however postulated that the
legal position favours the exercise of the discretion to the benefit
of the prisoners in cases where the prosecution is based on a
single transaction, no matter even if different complaints in
relation thereto might have been filed. Such benefit cannot be
extended to transactions which are distinctly different,
separate and independent of each other and amongst others,
where the parties are not the same.
17. Coming back to the present complaint, it appears
from the certified copy of three judgments that the
complainant provided friendly loan to the accused/petitioner
and in all the three complaint cases, it has been alleged
that the cheques were issued towards par payment of the loan
9
2026:CHC-AS:995
advanced to the accused. Therefore, the petitioner issued three
separate cheques to discharge his burden in respect of the
same loan which was given by the complainant. The
complaints filed by the opposite party stem from three
identical transactions between the same parties where under
the opposite party had advanced a loan, though the loan
amount has not been mentioned in any of the complaint. The
petitioner issued three cheques on three different dates to
discharge his debts, which got dishonoured. Therefore, the
argument made on behalf of the petitioner demonstrates that
the loans advanced had been in the course of a series of
transactions between the same parties. The petitioner is in
custody since 06.09.2025 i.e. for about 10 months and
therefore, considering overall facts and circumstances of the
case, it appears to me that the cheques were the part of the
same singly transaction and considering the facts that the
total imprisonment time becomes disproportionately harsh for
essentially one underlying loan transaction, I find that this is a
fit case where involving jurisdiction of this court under section
482 Cr.P.C., the prayer of the petitioner is required to be
allowed in order to secure the ends of justice.
18. Therefore, CRR 1137 of 2026 is allowed.
19. Substantive sentences awarded to the petitioners
by the Trial Court in complaint case no. 3014 of 2017
and complaint case no. 3147 of 2018 and complaint
10
2026:CHC-AS:995
case no. 139 of 2019 treated to have been run
concurrently. Since the petitioner has already undergone
imprisonment for much more than the maximum
sentence awarded in a particular case, the trial court is
directed to issue release order at once in favour of the
petitioner/convict.
20. However, this order shall be limited in respect of the
substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner and this will
have no concern in respect of the order passed in connection
with the payment by way of compensation awarded under
section 357 Cr.P.C. to the complainant, in default of which
the trial Court has given liberty to the complainant to proceed
against the convict/petitioner under the provision of section
421 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. in order to realize the compensation
amount.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the
requisite formalities.
(DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)
11
