JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This petition prays for interim bail for 90 days to enable the petitioner to seek bail in numerous cases registered against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and other offences, as well as stay of his arrest during the period of interim bail in any other case. By later applications viz. Cr. Misc. No. 48549-02 and Cr. Misc. 39926/03, supplementary prayers were made seeking release claiming that the petitioner is entitled to be released from the jail as he has completed even the sentences as under trial which he might be required to undergo in case of his conviction in those cases. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is Chairman-cum-Managing Director of N.I.T.L. Mutual Benefit (India) Ltd. with its head office at 9-A, DG-1, Vikaspuri, New Delhi. The company invited investments from general public in a number of projects assuring it maximum return. Various complainants from various parts of the country filed complaints alleging that they invested different amounts in the company of the petitioner. In repayment and discharge of its enforceable liability, the petitioner had issued cheques which have been dishonoured, resulting into conviction of the petitioner in number of cases. An affidavit has been filed by Mr. D.S. Rana, Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh showing that the petitioner has been convicted in nine cases and different sentences have been awarded. The detail of the same as given in the affidavit reads as under :- "(1) Simardeep Kaur v. NITL : In this case the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year vide order date 4.9.2001 by the Court of Mrs. Jitinder Walia, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. The under-trial period in this case was determined as one year, as such, the sentence has been considered as already undergone. (2) Dilbagh Singh v. NITL : In this case the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one years RI vide order dated 4.9.2001 passed by Mrs. Jitinder Walia, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. In this case the under trial period was 5 months and 17 days and the remaining sentence of 6 months 13 days was completed on 17.3.2002. (3) Pawandeep v. NITL : In this case, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year vide order dated 4.9.2001 passed by Mrs. Jitinder Walia, Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. In this case the under trial period was 5 months and 17 days and the remaining sentence of 6 months 13 days was completed on 17.3.2002. (3) Pawandeep v. NITL : In this case, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year vide order dated 4.9.2001 passed by Mrs. Jitinder Walia, Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. The under trial period in this case was 9 months and 26 days and the remaining sentence comes to 2 months and 4 days which was concluded being concurrent sentence. "Subject : Clarification of sentence awarded to accused R.D. Bharti in complaint cases titled Dilbagh Singh, Pawandeep Singh and Simardeep Kaur v. NITL Mutual Benefits Fund. Please refer to the subject cited above. With reference to your letter No. 2741 dated 13.9.2001, it is made clear that the sentences of the accused shall run concurrently and the benefit of under trial period under section 428 Criminal Procedure Code is to be given from.9.2002 upto the date on which production warrants were received in the jail for the production of the accused R.D. Bharti." (4) Ankush Garg v. NITL : In this case the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo one years R.I. under orders of Shri KK Goyal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 13.10.2001 and a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default, R.I. for one month. The under trial period in this case came to 7 months and 17 days and the remaining sentence of 4 months and 13 days concluded on 30.7.2002. Since the fine was not deposited, therefore, the petitioner chose to undergo sentence in lieu thereof i.e. one month, which also concluded on 30.8.2002. (5) Sukhbir v. NITL : In this case, the petitioner was directed to undergo sentence for 7 months and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under the orders of Shri Phalit Sharma, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, dated 3.11.2001. The under trial period in this case was more than the sentence, as such, the sentence was considered to be undergone. The remaining sentence of one months simple imprisonment for non-payment of fine concluded on 30.9.2002. The under trial period in this case was more than the sentence, as such, the sentence was considered to be undergone. The remaining sentence of one months simple imprisonment for non-payment of fine concluded on 30.9.2002. (6) Abhilash Shanker v. R.D. Bharti : In this case the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to already undergone period which came to 9 months and 4 days vide judgment and sentence dated 1.3.2002 passed by Shri Phalit Sharma. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. A fine of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed and in default simple imprisonment for one week. One weeks simple imprisonment has already been undergone by the petitioner. (7) H.S. Bedi v. NITL : In this case the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year vide orders dated 19.3.2002. The under trial period in this case was more that one year and hence the sentence is already undergone by the petitioner. (8) Vidya Wati v. NITL : In this case the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to the period already undergone vide order of Shri Pushwinder Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, dated 19.3.2002. (9) Neeta Pathania v. NITL : In this case the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to already undergone period vide order passed by Mrs. Gurvinder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, dated 2.3.2002. 3. Apart from the aforementioned conviction ordered by various Courts, the petitioner has been convicted by Delhi Consumer Forum in which he has been awarded various sentences as per the list shown furnished by learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh. The same reads as under ;- "1. Complaint No. 1538/99 Date of Sentence : 7.4.2k M-1539/99 One Year R.I. 2. Complaint No. M-2100/99 Date of Sentence : 7.4.2k M-1405/99 One Year R.I. 3. Complaint No. M-1400/99 Date of Sentence : 7.4.2k M-1405/99 M-1538/99 M-1539/99 M-1773/99 M-1774/99 M-1775/99 M-1776/99 M-1777/99 M-1778/99 One Year R.I. 4. Shivan Rastogi & Shiva Rastogi Case Complaint No. 1211/97 Date of sentence : 19.2.1999 Two Years R.I. 5. Complaint No. M-2139-K 1020/98 Harjinder Gautam V/S R.D. Bharti Date of sentence : 17.6.2000 One year R.I. 6. Complaint No. 2139/2K Date of sentence : 4.7.2001 2342/2k One year R.I. 7. Complaint No. 1659 Date of sentence : 23.10.98 One year R.I. 4. In addition to the above, five cases have been registered against the petitioner at Patna (Bihar), Delhi, Bombay and Chandigarh. Complaint No. 2139/2K Date of sentence : 4.7.2001 2342/2k One year R.I. 7. Complaint No. 1659 Date of sentence : 23.10.98 One year R.I. 4. In addition to the above, five cases have been registered against the petitioner at Patna (Bihar), Delhi, Bombay and Chandigarh. The detail of the same is as under :- "1. F.I.R. No. - 42/98 U/s-420, 406, 120B Indian Penal Code P.S. - Central Chandigarh. 2. F.I.R. No. - 156/98 U/s-420/34 Indian Penal Code P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, Patna (BIHAR) 3. F.I.R. No. - 555/97, 547/97, 585/97, 644/97 U/s-420, 406/34 Indian Penal Code P.S. - Vikas Puri, New Delhi. 4. F.I.R. No. - 56/97 U/s-420, 406, 120B Indian Penal Code P.S. - G.S.C.B.C.T.D. Mumbai Maharashtra. 5. F.I.R. No. - 265/97 U/s-420, 406, 120B Indian Penal Code P.S. Vasi Mumbai Maharashtra. 6. F.I.R. No. - 431/97 U/s-420, 406/34 Indian Penal Code P.S. - Juhu, Mumbai Maharashtra. 5. According to the detail furnished on 12.7.2002, the Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh had also supplied a list of nine cases where the petitioner has been convicted with detail of the sentence awarded to him, five cases where the sentence has been awarded to him by the Courts at Patiala and seven cases where he has been awarded different sentences by the Consumer Court, Delhi. The list further disclosed various pending cases at Patiala, Chandigarh, Delhi, Faridabad, Mumbai and Bihar. 6. Mr. S.S. Narula, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has undergone substantive sentence for a period more than the sentences awarded by various Courts as the sentences were to run concurrently. According to the learned counsel even in cases where the petitioner is facing trial and has been in detention under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Criminal Procedure Code), he should be discharged by the Magistrate by applying a deeming fiction that he has already undergone that sentence. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Sections 428 and 458 Criminal Procedure Code to argue that he cannot once again be further sentenced by the Magistrates on the basis of the trials pending elsewhere like Mumbai, Patna. Faridabad and Delhi. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and another v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, (2001) 6 SCC 311. Faridabad and Delhi. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and another v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, (2001) 6 SCC 311. He has also placed reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Husainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1377. The learned counsel has further argued that under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act and Sections 29(2) and 357 Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate has no power to impose fine beyond Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, the imposition of fine for lacs of rupees by the Magistrate would not stand in the way of the petitioner from being released on bail. For the aforementioned proposition, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and another, 2002(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 80. The learned counsel has also submitted that the sentences should be deemed to be running concurrently and cannot be taken to be running consecutively. The learned counsel has also argued that the petitioner is admittedly in custody since 19.2.1999 and has already served sentences for more than 4-1/2 years. Merely because there are production warrants issued against the petitioner for his trial by some other Courts, it will not be proper to continue his detention. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Dass Ram v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1333 and Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 Crl.L.J. 2095. 7. The petitioner has also placed on record copies of some judgments passed by the Magistrates awarding sentences against him. A perusal of those orders shows that the imposition of fine has been ordered to be paid to the complainants which necessarily would mean that the same has been imposed as a compensation, not as a fine simplicitor. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Magistrate did not have the power to impose the aforesaid compensation. A perusal of those orders shows that the imposition of fine has been ordered to be paid to the complainants which necessarily would mean that the same has been imposed as a compensation, not as a fine simplicitor. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Magistrate did not have the power to impose the aforesaid compensation. The judgment in Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patels case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner would not be of any assistance to him because under Section 357 Criminal Procedure Code, there is adequate power given to the Magistrate to pass an order in favour of the complainant to compensate him. There is ample support for the aforementioned view in Section 357 Criminal Procedure Code which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510. The Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others, (1988) 4 SCC 551 has emphasized the need for making liberal use of that provision. It is further pertinent to notice that no limit has been placed under Section 357 Criminal Procedure Code on the power of the Magistrate to fix the quantum of such compensation. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to hold that the Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to impose the fine by way of compensation which was to be paid to the complainants in various cases or in lieu thereof, the petitioner was to undergo further sentence. 8. Learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh has argued that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail or the enlarged relief of releasing him as the sentence in lieu of non-payment of compensation awarded to the complainants is yet to be completed. According to the learned counsel, there are number of pending cases where the petitioner is facing trial and the sentences are yet to be announced. The learned counsel has argued that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Najakat Alia Mubarak Alis case (supra) would not be attracted to the present case as the conviction in some other cases is yet to be recorded and he is merely an under trial. The learned counsel has further emphasized that no benefit of the judgment in Hussainara Khatoons case (supra) could be given to the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel has further emphasized that no benefit of the judgment in Hussainara Khatoons case (supra) could be given to the petitioner. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed because the Magistrates in separate orders of separate dates have not ordered that the sentences should run concurrently as per the provisions made in Section 427 Criminal Procedure Code nor any such prayer appears to have been made by the petitioner before the Magistrates. Sections 427 and 428 Criminal Procedure Code read as under ;- "427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. - (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 sentences 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 of imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. xxx xxx xxx 428. Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment. - When an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term [not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine] the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him." 10. Both these provisions came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Najakat Alia Mubarak Alis case, 2001(2) Recent Criminal Report 778 (SC) (supra). Both these provisions came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Najakat Alia Mubarak Alis case, 2001(2) Recent Criminal Report 778 (SC) (supra). The view of the Supreme Court on Sections 427 and 428 Criminal Procedure Code reads as under :- "The placement of that section just below Section 427 of the Code tempts us to have a peep into the preceding section, which deals with instances wherein one person is sentenced in a case when he has already been undergoing the sentence in another case. The first sub-section of Section 427 says that the sentence in the second conviction shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which the accused has been previously sentenced, "unless the court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence." The second sub-section to Section 427 of the Code says that 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. Thus the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the same person in two different convictions would converge into one and thereafter it would flow through one stream alone. Even if the sentence in one of those two cases is not imprisonment for life but only a lesser term the convergence will take place and the post-convergence flow would be through the same channel. In all other cases, it is left to the court to decide whether the sentences in two different convictions should merge into one period or not. If no order is passed by the court the two sentences would run one after the other. No doubt, Section 427 is intended to provide amelioration to the prisoner. When such amelioration is a statutory operation in cases falling under the second sub-section it is a matter of choice for the court when the cases fall within the first sub-section. Nonetheless, the entire section is aimed at providing amelioration to a prisoner. Thus a penumbra of the succeeding section can be glimpsed through the former provision."(emphasis added) 11. When such amelioration is a statutory operation in cases falling under the second sub-section it is a matter of choice for the court when the cases fall within the first sub-section. Nonetheless, the entire section is aimed at providing amelioration to a prisoner. Thus a penumbra of the succeeding section can be glimpsed through the former provision."(emphasis added) 11. Referring to the report of a committee for introducing Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code, their Lordships have further laid down two requisites before the benefit of Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code could be given, namely, (1) during the stage of investigation, enquiry or trial of a particular case the prisoner should have been in jail at least for a certain period; and (2) he should have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in that case. It is further clear that the sentences are to Dove-tail in cases where a person is already convicted and while serving sentence he is further convicted. In such cases from the date of order of subsequent conviction, the convict is to undergo the balance sentence, not the whole sentence. However, if he is required in any other case, then it is entirely a different matter. A reading of paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment of Najakat Alia Mubarak Alis case (supra) makes the aforementioned position further clear which read as under :- "If the above two conditions are satisfied then the operative part of the provision comes into play i.e. if the sentence of imprisonment awarded is longer than the period of detention undergone by him during the stages of investigation, enquiry or trial, the convicted person need undergo only the balance period of imprisonment after deducting the earlier period from the total period of imprisonment awarded. The words "if any" in the section amplify that if there is no balance period left after such deduction the convict will be entitled to be set free from jail, unless he is required in any other case. The words "if any" in the section amplify that if there is no balance period left after such deduction the convict will be entitled to be set free from jail, unless he is required in any other case. In other words, if the convict was in prison, for whatever reason, during the stages of investigation, enquiry or trial of a particular case and was later convicted and sentenced to any term of imprisonment in that case the earlier period of detention undergone by him should be counted as part of the sentence imposed on him." (Emphasis added) In the above context, it is apposite to point out that very often it happens, when an accused is convicted in one case under different counts of offences and sentenced to different terms of the imprisonment under each such count, all such sentences are directed to run concurrently. The idea behind it is that the imprisonment to be suffered by him for one count of offence will, in fact and in effect be imprisonment for other counts as well. Reading Section 428 of the Code in the above perspective, the words "of the same case" are not to be understood as suggesting that the set-off is allowable only if the earlier jail life was undergone by him exclusively for the case in which the sentence is imposed. The period during which the accused was in prison subsequent to the inception of a particular case, should be credited towards the period of imprisonment awarded as sentence in that particular case. It is immaterial that the prisoner was undergoing sentence of imprisonment in another case also during the said period. The words "of the same case" were used to refer the pre-sentence period of detention undergone by him. Nothing more can be made out of the collocation of those words." 12. In view of the above, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be released from prison even if it is presumed that he has undergone the sentences awarded on account of conviction in various cases because firstly there are number of cases pending against the petitioner and secondly he is yet to complete his sentence in lieu of non-payment of compensation/fine. This is the precise ratio of the judgment in Najakat Alia Mubarak Alis case (supra) as the underlined portion shows. This is the precise ratio of the judgment in Najakat Alia Mubarak Alis case (supra) as the underlined portion shows. Moreover, there is no order by the Magistrates passed under Section 258 Criminal Procedure Code discharging the petitioner nor there is any order passed by any Magistrate under Section 427 Criminal Procedure Code directing that the sentence shall run concurrently with any previous sentence. There is no material on record to show that any superior court on appeal or revision has directed the sentences to run concurrently. Therefore, there is no substance in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.