M. P. CHINNAPPA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsels appearing for both the parties. ( 2 ) THESE four criminal revision petitions arise under similar grounds in which the petitioners are the same and the offences alleged against them are also under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. ( 3 ) IN C. C. Nos. 14 and 16 of 2000 and 15 of 2001, the petitioners were charge-sheeted for three incidents which had taken place on 1-5-1998, 23-9-1999 and 12-4-1999 and were convicted to undergo R. I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2,500/ -. ( 4 ) IN C. C. No. 291 of 2000 they were charge-sheeted for the said offences on the allegation that on 6/7-3-1997 they committed the said offences and the Trial Court convicted them for 2 years and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,500/ -. These convictions were modified by the Appellate court as indicated below. ( 5 ) IN these criminal revision petitions the petitioners have not questioned the validity and correctness of the judgment of both the Courts below holding them guilty under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. For that matter, they have also not questioned the sentence imposed by the lower Appellate Court in all the 4 appeals. Their only grievance is that both the Courts have committed an error in not directing the sentence to run concurrently and further the petitioners are entitled for deduction of the period of custody from the date of arrest till the judgment passed by the Trial Court as provided under Section 428 of the Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsels for the petitioners vehemently argued that the Trial Court remanded the petitioners to judicial custody from 28-2-2001 as a result of which they were in custody for one year 5 months and one day and this period has to be deducted in respect of all the cases. To emphasise this fact, he also further contended that since these incidents occurred during 12 months time, the Court ought to have framed charges in respect of 3 offences as provided under Section 219 of the Cr. P. C. and if this was done, they should have been convicted for all the offences under one sentence which would cover the 3 cases and only in regard to the other case, the lower Court should have tried independently. P. C. and if this was done, they should have been convicted for all the offences under one sentence which would cover the 3 cases and only in regard to the other case, the lower Court should have tried independently. Therefore, he submitted, that the impugned judgments of the court below call for interference. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, the learned State Public Prosecutor has submitted that in view of Section 31 of the Cr. P. C. the petitioners are not entitled for any benefits. He further submitted that each offence is committed on different dates and Section 219 of the Cr. P. C. is only directory and not mandatory and it cannot be held that prejudice is caused to the petitioners. Even otherwise also, the Court has rightly convicted the petitioners for each offence and these convictions will have to be suffered consecutively and not concurrently. The petitioners would not be entitled for deduction of the period they were in custody. Therefore, he submitted that these petitions are liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) A mere reading of Section 219 of the Cr. P. C. makes it clear that it is not mandatory but permissive. If each of the offences were to be proved by distinct and separate evidence and one trial was likely to lead to confusion, the Court might well and indeed should refuse to try more than one offence committed in the same transaction. ( 9 ) IN view of this, the argument of the learned Counsels for the petitioners that the Trial Court has committed an error in not trying the 3 cases in one trial is liable to be rejected. Further, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. In addition to that, the petitioners had not raised their little finger before the Trial Court prior to the commencement of the trial bringing to the notice of the Court that the 3 offences should be tried together. From the judgment also it is abundantly clear that each offence is distinct and each case required different evidence to establish the case. Under the circumstances, this argument is rejected. ( 10 ) EVEN otherwise also, Section 31 of the Cr. P. C. deals with sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. Even if these 3 cases as suggested by the learned Counsel were tried together, in view of Section 31 of the Cr. Under the circumstances, this argument is rejected. ( 10 ) EVEN otherwise also, Section 31 of the Cr. P. C. deals with sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. Even if these 3 cases as suggested by the learned Counsel were tried together, in view of Section 31 of the Cr. P. C. , the Court ought to have convicted the petitioners for each of the offences proved to have been committed by them under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that these 3 offences which are said to have been committed within 12 months were not tried together. The conviction awarded for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 was directed to run concurrently by both the Courts. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel further submitted that in view of Section 428 of the Cr. P. C. the Court should have given the benefit of deduction of the period which they had spent in custody during trial in respect of all the 4 convictions. Admittedly, the petitioners were in custody from 1-8-2000. In the normal course, the benefit under Section 428 could be given. But in these petitions, it is clear that they were convicted in 4 cases though offences are similar and the accused persons are also the same. ( 12 ) A similar circumstance arose before their Lordships of the Supreme court in Ammavasai and Another v Inspector of Police, Valliyanur and Others. In that case, the 1st appellant was convicted in 4 different cases, the occurrence in all the cases took place between 27-3-1990 and 7-5-1990. The offence found against him in all the cases was 'under Section 395 of the IPC and in each case he was sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years. If he was not given the benefit in exercise of the discretion conferred under Section 427 of the Cr. P. C. he may have to undergo a very long period of 28 years in jail. The 2nd appellant-Devaraj therein was convicted in 5 different cases, the occurrence in all of which took place between 21-10-1989 and 7-5-1990. He was also found guilty under Section 395 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 7 years in each case. The 2nd appellant-Devaraj therein was convicted in 5 different cases, the occurrence in all of which took place between 21-10-1989 and 7-5-1990. He was also found guilty under Section 395 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 7 years in each case. If the benefit conferred under Section 427 is not extended to him, he may have to undergo imprisonment for a total period of 35 years in jail. ( 13 ) CONSIDERING these facts and in view of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 31 wherein it is provided that in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than fourteen years. Their Lordships have restricted the total period of sentences in favour of these two appellants to 14 years of imprisonment in respect of all the convictions passed against them which was held to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It is also further observed by their Lordships that the sentence imposed in subsequent cases would start running only on the termination of sentence imposed upon the appellants in the aforementioned cases. ( 14 ) FROM this it is clear that the sentences will have to run one after the other. The petitioners would be entitled for deduction of the period which they had undergone from the total period of imprisonment awarded by the Court. The lower Appellate Court has given deduction for the period in custody and has restricted the imprisonment as referred to in the judgment. This is also due to the fact that if these 3 offences were clubbed together and a single sentence was imposed, the accused persons would be left scot-free without there being any conviction for the other offences. In this case, as indicated above, they committed 4 offences and they have to suffer imprisonment for each offence for which they were convicted. Under the circumstances, the argument of the learned Counsels for the petitioners, that the Courts have committed an error in not giving benefit to the petitioners in respect of each conviction for the period they had undergone is liable to be rejected in view of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions have no merit and accordingly they are liable to be dismissed. These petitions stand dismissed in the light of the observations made above. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions have no merit and accordingly they are liable to be dismissed. These petitions stand dismissed in the light of the observations made above. --- *** --- .