The court has the power to order concurrent sentences under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially when the convictions pertain to the same offence within a short span of time.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present criminal miscellaneous petition invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the petitioner has prayed that the sentences awarded to the petitioner in five different cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') be ordered to run concurrently.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was convicted of offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in five different cases.

3. The petitioner preferred separate appeals which were all dismissed and resultantly, the conviction was upheld. The details of the sentences awarded in each of the five cases are as follows:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner who was sent behind bars on 22.02.2020 has already spent two years in custody.

5. He also pointed out that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be punished with an imprisonment of upto 2 years at the most and if the sentences run consecutively, the petitioner would have to remain in prison for 5 long years, which would be contrary to the provisions contained in N.I. Act.

6. Learned counsel relied on the judgment dated 17.02.2017 rendered in the case of Rajender Kabra v. State of Rajasthan, in SB Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2883/2014 in support of his prayer to make all the sentences concurrent.

7. Given the factual matrix of this case and considering that the offences committed by the petitioner are financial in nature, maybe his financial constraints and not guilty animus has led to commission of this breach which tantamounts to an offence.

8. On perusal of the record, it is clear that all the convictions against the petitioner pertain to a short span of time ranging from June to September of the year 2019. It appears to this Court that the present petitioner may have undergone financial distress during these months, leading to multiple cases of dishonour of cheques issued by him.

9. Since all the convictions against the petitioner pertain to the same offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, this Court finds no compelling reason as to why the sentences should run consecutively merely because they have been awarded in cases that were filed separately.

10. In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arjun Ram v. State of Rajasthan [2016(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346] and the judgment rendered in the case of Rajender Kabra (supra), this Court deems it expedient and in the interest of justice to invoke its powers under Section 427 of the