Based on the provided legal document, similar judgments generally emphasize the discretionary power of the court to direct that multiple sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively, even when the statutory provisions suggest otherwise. Courts have recognized that Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code confers upon the judiciary the authority to order concurrent running of sentences, taking into account the nature of the offences, the overall criminal conduct, and the interests of justice (!) (!) .

Judgments also highlight that this discretion should be exercised judiciously and not mechanically, considering the specific circumstances of each case. The courts have upheld the principle that while the default position is to run sentences consecutively, the courts may, in their discretion, direct concurrent sentences to avoid undue hardship or to reflect the overall criminality of the conduct (!) (!) .

Furthermore, courts have clarified that this power is to be exercised with judicial prudence, ensuring that the decision aligns with the principles of fairness and justice. The discretion is not bound by rigid rules but is to be exercised based on the facts, the gravity of the offences, and the cumulative impact of the sentences (!) .

In summary, similar judgments affirm the principle that courts have the authority and discretion to order that sentences run concurrently, even when statutory provisions imply a different approach, provided the exercise of such discretion is grounded in sound judicial reasoning (!) (!) .