JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

By way of this common order, this Court intends to dispose off, all the afore-said petitions together, as common question of law is involved in all the petitions.

Prayer

2. The afore-said revision petitions have been preferred against judgment dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat whereby, the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2018 and order of sentence dated 28.02.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat in different Complaints bearing CIS Nos. COMA-5268-2013, COMA-5267-2013, COMA-5269-2013 & COMA-5270-2013 vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in each complaint for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1881'), has been upheld. The petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in two cases and Rs. 4,00,000/- in other two cases, under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. to the complainant.

Contentions:

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that she does not want to challenge the conviction of the petitioner on merits. However, she submits that in view of the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is on higher side.

4. However, she argues that in the separate criminal complaints, the evidence adduced are substantially the same and since all the complainants were heard together by the trial court and decided on the same day vide separate judgment and order on quantum of sentence, the sentences imposed upon the petitioner in the separate criminal complaints are required to run concurrently as per Section 427 CrPC.

5. Reliance has been placed upon judgment passed by Delhi High Court in 'Amit Sharma vs. Rama Goyal', 2023 (1) DCR 742, wherein it has been observed that it is only when the conviction in a cheque case arise out of the single transaction, concurrent sentence would be merited.

Analysis

6. The crux of the question involved in this matter is that whether this Court can invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC for granting the relief under Section 427 CrPC for ordering the sentences imposed by the trial court to run concurrently in separate criminal complaints arising out of same transaction.

7. It is apposite, at this stage, to reproduce Section 427 CrPC, which reads as under :-

(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence :Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.

(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

8. Therefore on a fair reading of Section 427 of Cr.PC, when a person who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced. Meaning thereby the sentences in both the conviction shall run consecutively. However, there is an exception to that, namely unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. There is one another exception. As per Sub-section