G.R UDHWANI, J.

Rule. These applications are made to recall the order dated 23.10.2015 passed in the captioned Criminal Revision Applications for modification. It is urged to exercise the discretion under section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (“Cr. P.C” for short) to direct the sentence imposed upon the applicant to run concurrently rather than consequently on the plea that the transaction out of which the offences were registered against the applicant was the same; that five cheques were issued for the same transaction which were dishonoured. A joint trial was made but separate judgements were passed. It is urged that even this court had passed a common judgement in all the five Criminal Revision Applications.

2. For the proposition that the discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant-convict, reliance is placed upon Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya 2016 (10) Scale 441.

3. Having considered the rival contentions, it is not in dispute that all the five cases have arisen out of the same transactions. Trial was common; though separate judgements were delivered. This court has also passed a common judgement in all the five cases.

4. The facts in so far as sent