The main legal point established is that concurrent sentencing can be allowed under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. based on the petitioner's already served sentence and financial condition.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner Ashutosh Sharma under Section 482 r/w 427 Cr.P.C. for issuance of appropriate directions to the authorities regarding the concurrency of sentence passed in three cases by different courts.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and gone through the material made available on record.

3. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant criminal misc. petition are that the petitioner was tried and then convicted in Criminal Complaint No. 408/2018 (300/15) vide judgment dated 30.06.2018 passed by learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act) No. 19, Jpr. Metropolitan wherein he was directed to suffer a sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.4,50,000/- for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In case of default in payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the above mentioned decision, Criminal Appeal No. 31/2018 was preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner and the learned Additional District & Session Judge No. 02, Jpr. Metropolitan was pleased to decide the appeal vide judgment dated 22.04.2019 whereby the conviction of the petitioner was maintained. However, the sentence in default of payment of fine was reduced from 6 months simple imprisonment to 3 months simple imprisonment. The sentence and fine, as imposed by the trial court, have been maintained.

4. The second case against the accused-petitioner, for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, was filed before Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act) No. 05, Jpr. Metropolitan. The petitioner was tried and convicted in this case as well, vide judgment dated 26.08.2019 and he has been directed to suffer 1 year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,35,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he would have to further undergo 02 months' simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the accused-petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 110/2019 (C.I.S. No. 1520/19) before the learned Additional Session Judge (Women Atrocity cases) No. 02, Jpr. Metropolitan, whereby the conviction of the petitioner was affirmed, as it is, with no change whatsoever in the sentence, fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine, vide judgment dated 02.03.2020.

5. The accused-petitioner failed to pay the loan in yet another case and Criminal Complaint No. 22657/2014 was filed against the petitioner into the bargain. The learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act) No. 19, Jpr. Metropolitan tried the case and convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 03.09.2019 and he has been directed to suffer 2 years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.22,76,220/- for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In case of default of payment of fine, he would have to further undergo 06 months' simple imprisonment. Disgruntled by the aforementioned judgment, the accused-petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 1552/2019 (C.I.S. No. 1520/19) before the learned Additional Session Judge (Women Atrocity cases) No. 01, Jpr. Metropolitan, whereby the conviction of the petitioner was upheld. However, the sentence was reduced from 2 years' simple imprisonment to 1.5 years' simple imprisonment and the sentence for default in payment of fine was also reduced from 6 months' simple imprisonment to 4 months' simple imprisonment. But, the amount of fine was directed to remain the same.

6. The maximum term of imprisonment as awarded against the petitioner is 1.5 years with fine. As a matter of fact, all the three cases are related to default of payment of loan via cheques wherein one cheque was returned on note of account being closed and the other two cheques were returned on note of funds being insufficient. Therefore, three separate cases were lodged.

7. As per the records of the cases and if the date of the decision of f