JUDGMENT

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that falls for determination in these appeals by special leave is whether the High Court was right in declining the prayer made by the appellant for a direction in terms of Section 427 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the sentences awarded to the appellant in connection with the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed against him to run concurrently.

3. The material facts are not in dispute. The appellant is a Director in a group of companies including Arawali Tubes Ltd., Arawali Alloys Ltd., Arawali Pipes Ltd. and Sabhyata Plastics Pvt. Ltd. The appellant’s case before us in that in connection with his business conducted in the name of the above companies, he had approached the respondent, Haryana Financial Corporation for financial assistance and facilities. The Corporation had accepted the requests made by the Companies and granted financial assistance to the first three of the four companies mentioned above. Several cheques towards repayment of the amount borrowed by the appellant in the name of the above companies were issued in favour of the Haryana Financial Corporation which on presentation were dishonoured by the banks concerned for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, the Corporation instituted complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant in his capacity as the Director of the borrowing companies. These complaints were tried by Judicial Magistrates at Hissar culminating in the conviction of the appellant and sentence of imprisonment which ranged between 6 months in some cases to one year in some others besides imposition of different amounts of fine levied in each complaint case and a default sentence in the event of non payment of amount awarded in each one of those cases.

4. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence in the cases filed against him the appellant preferred appeals which were heard and dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar in terms of separate orders passed in each case. In some of the cases the Appellate Court reduced the sentence from one year to nine months.

5. The appellant then approached the High Court by way of revision petitions. The High Court dismissed 15 out of 17 revisions petitions in which the appellant was convicted. The remaining two revision petitions are still pending before the High Court. The High Court noticed that the appellant had not questioned the correctness of the conviction before the appellate Court which disentitled him to do so in revision. That position was, it appears, not disputed even by the appellant, the only contention urged before the High Court being that instead of the sentences awarded to him running consecutively they ought to run concurrently. That contention was turned down by the High Court holding that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant was not excessive so as to warrant its reduction or a direction for concurrent running of the same. The High Court noted:

“As regards sentence, keeping in view the amount of cheques, sentence of simple imprisonment for six months in each case cannot be said to be excessive so as warrant reduction or direction for concurrent running of the sentences in all the 8 cases. Even sentence in default of payment of fine, which is huge amount, also cannot be said to be excessive”.

6. The revision petitions filed by the appellant along with the criminal miscellaneous applications moved under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. were accordingly dismissed. The present appeals assail the correctness of the orders passed by the High Court which are no doubt separate but in similar terms.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that the High Court has committed an error in declining the prayer made by the appellant for an appropriate direction to the effect that the sentences awarded to the appellant in the cases in which he was found gui