Jayantilal Lavji Kara Shah v. R., Crim. App. 231-D-68, 28/6/68, Georges C. J.

Jayantilal Lavji Kara Shah v. R., Crim. App. 231-D-68, 28/6/68, Georges C. J.

Accused, an advocate, was convicted of two counts of forgery, one count of uttering a false document, one count of stealing by agent and one count of obtaining money by false pretences. The facts were that he had been holding a certificate of title for a client. He forged another certificate, which he gave to the client, and then used the genuine certificate to negotiate a mortgage. He then forged the client’s signature on the mortgage and obtained Shs. 60,000/-. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment  - one year on the forgery counts, and three years’  on the other counts which were to run concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the forgery counts.

            Held: (1) All of the counts refer to a single transaction, and consecutive terms of imprisonment should not have been imposed. “In such cases, the best method of sentencing is to arrive at an appropriate punishment for the entire transaction and award concurrent terms to meet each

Separate count, taking into consideration the maximum punishment fixed for each by law.” (2) The jurisdiction of the Senior Resident Magistrate is limited to passing a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years for any single offence. Sitting on appeal, the High court cannot pass a sentence higher than that which the trial magistrate could have passed. Although the term of four years’ imprisonment is not in itself excessive, the imposition of concurrent terms of imprisonment will result in a total term of imprisonment of three years. Sentences ordered to run concurrently.