JUDGMENT : M.D. SHAH, J. 1. By way of Special Criminal Application No. 150 of 2003, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in not releasing the petitioner from jail despite having already undergone the maximum sentence awarded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surendranagar by common judgment and order dated 30-9-2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1999 filed by the petitioner as also in Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2001 preferred by the complainant produced at Annexure "B" to the petition and the common order of even date in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2002 filed by the petitioner and Criminal Revision Application No. 19 of 2002 preferred by the complainant produced at Annexure "C" to the petition. The petitioner has also sought to free him from jail custody. 2. The facts leading to the institution of Special Criminal Application No. 150 of 2003 are that the petitioner had business relations with one Satishchandra Chhotalal Shah and accordingly, he had bought two truck-loads of black cotton-seeds from him towards the payment of which he had issued three different cheques, namely: (1) Cheque No. 852652 dated 20-11-1995 for Rs. 1,20,000/- (2) Cheque No. 852653 dated 1-12-1995 for Rs. 1,20,000/- and (3) Cheque No. 852654 dated 8-12-1995 for Rs. 1,13,247-74 ps. Against the dishonour of these three cheques, the said Satishchandra Chhotalal Shah had filed three different complaints on different dates leaving gap of one month in between each complaint, in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. Surendranagar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These complaints were registered as Criminal Case Nos. 8232 and 8705 of 1995 and 108 of 1996 respectively. 3. In Criminal Case No. 8232 of 1995, the petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.) and J.M.F.C. Surendranagar by judgment and order dated 31-1-1998. The petitioner preferred appeal No. 2 of 1998 against this order, but the same was dismissed on 6-3-2000, however, the amount of fine was reduced to Rs. 1,20,000 and the petitioner had surrendered to the jail authorities on 19-1-2002. The petitioner then preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 2927 of 2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat which was dismissed on 29-3-2000. The petitioner was arrested and sent to custody on 25-7-2000. 1,20,000 and the petitioner had surrendered to the jail authorities on 19-1-2002. The petitioner then preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 2927 of 2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat which was dismissed on 29-3-2000. The petitioner was arrested and sent to custody on 25-7-2000. The petitioner then approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 927 of 2000 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed interim order of bail on 28-9-2000 and the petitioner was released on 1-10-2000 and thus the petitioner remained in custody from 25-7-2000 to 30-9-2000. The learned Magistrate has also given set off for this period to the petitioner. 4. In Criminal Case No. 8705 of 1995, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for eleven months by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Surendranagar by judgment and order dated 20-10-1999. Against this order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1999 while the complainant also challenged the order by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2001 and both the appeals of the petitioner and the Revision of the complainant were heard together and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar who by his judgment and order dated 30-9-1992 dismissed the revision as well as the appeal, however, the prayer made in appeal by the petitioner for ordering the sentences to run concurrently was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and it was ordered that the sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal No. 8705 of 1995 shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal No. 8232 of 1995 copy whereof is produced at Annexure "B" to the petitioner. 5. In Criminal Case No. 108 of 1996 also the petitioner was convicted by the 1st Jt. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Surendranagar vide judgment and order dated 24-4-2002 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- out of which, Rs. 3,000/- was ordered to be paid over to the complainant. The learned Magistrate has also given set off to the petitioner for the period the petitioner remained in custody from 18-3-2002 to 24-4-2002. Against this order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2002 while the complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 19 of 2002 and both the appeals of the petitioner and the revision of the complainant were heard together and decided by the learned Addl. Against this order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2002 while the complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 19 of 2002 and both the appeals of the petitioner and the revision of the complainant were heard together and decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 30-9-2002 dismissed the appeal as well as revision, however, the prayer made by the petitioner in appeal for a direction that the sentence ordered shall run concurrently with the sentences imposed in Criminal Case Nos. 8232 of 1995 and 8705 of 1999 was granted. 6. It is further the case of the petitioner that in respect of all the three criminal cases as per the sentence awarded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, the petitioner was required to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 months (including three months simple imprisonment in case of failure to pay the compensation amount awarded) as the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by giving benefit of Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. According to the petitioner, considering the set off given to the petitioner for the periods from 25-7-2000 to 30-9-2000 and 18-3-2002 to 24-4-2002 in the two criminal cases as referred above, the imprisonment of the petitioner as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already come to an end, and therefore, the petitioner is required to be released forthwith. Hence, the present Special Criminal Application. 7. I do not deem it necessary to reiterate the facts in Special Criminal Application Nos. 971 of 2002 and 972 of 2002 (cross-petitions filed by the original complainant) as the facts in these petitions are already stated in detail while narrating the facts in Special Criminal Application No. 150 of 2003. Suffice it to say that Special Criminal Application No. 971 of 2002 has been preferred by the original complainant seeking modification of the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Surendranagar in Criminal Case No. 180 of 1996 to the extent that double the amount of the dishonoured cheque be awarded and the order directing the sentence to run concurrently passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2002 be set aside. Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2002 be set aside. Similarly, Special Criminal Application No. 972 of 2002 has been preferred by the original complainant seeking modification of the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. in Criminal Case No. 8705 of 1999 to the extent that double the amount of the dishonoured cheque and/or the amount of the dishonoured cheque be awarded as compensation and the order directing the sentences to run concurrently passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1999 be set aside. 8. Since, common question of law and facts are involved in these three Special Criminal Applications, with the consent of the learned Advocates for both sides, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 9. Heard learned Counsel Mr. C.L. Soni for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval for the respondent-State in Special Criminal Application No. 150 of 2003. Mr. Nitin M. Amin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.S. Nanavati for the respondent No. 1 and learned A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval for the respondent No. 2-State in Special Criminal Application No. 971 of 2002 and 972 of 2002. 10. It is argued by the learned Advocate Mr. Nitin Amin for the petitioner in the respective Special Criminal Applications that the Court below has not considered the conduct of the respondent No. 1-original accused inasmuch as non-bailable warrant had been issued by the learned Magistrate and since the respondent No. 1 was absconding the non-bailable warrant was not executed. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate that date for pronouncement of the judgment was fixed on 21st October, 1990, but surprisingly the petitioner came on 21st October, 1990 and the judgment was pronounced on the same day and the accused was also released on bail of Rs. 5,000/- on condition to bring orders from the higher forum. It is also submitted by Mr. Amin that fine is also not imposed by the lower Court while convicting the accused though complaint is filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the learned Counsel taking into consideration, the conduct of the respondent-accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have taken a lenient view and had erred in ordering the sentences to run concurrently as there were no special extraordinary circumstances or reasons to pass such order. According to the learned Counsel taking into consideration, the conduct of the respondent-accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have taken a lenient view and had erred in ordering the sentences to run concurrently as there were no special extraordinary circumstances or reasons to pass such order. The submission that the learned Judge has failed to take into consideration the conduct of the accused in absconding has no substance since the accused had been granted bail in S.L.P. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he has not misused his liberty. The learned Judge had order compensation, and therefore, it cannot be said that no fine is imposed. The ground canvassed that the learned Judge had all of a sudden pronounced the judgment does stand to good reasoning and as such does not merit acceptance. 11. Learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Amin in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of M.R. Kudya vs. State of A.P. 2007 (2) SCC 772 , where the facts stand on an entirely different footing, and therefore, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 12. Learned Counsel Mr. T.S. Nanavati for the respondent-accused has submitted that for one single transaction three different cheques have been issued and considering this aspect, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly modified the order of the lower Court to the extent that the sentences shall run concurrently. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also rightly interpreted Section 219 and in light of the provisions laid down therein, given the benefit to the accused, and hence, this Court should not interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that when the appeal was being decided, order of conviction in two criminal cases were already passed and when three cheques of different dates were issued on one and the same day, the appellate Court has rightly modified the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Under the circumstances, it was prayed that the Special Criminal Application Nos. 971 of 2002 and 972 of 2002 be dismissed. The submissions advanced by Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted altogether for the reasons to follow. 13. Mr. Under the circumstances, it was prayed that the Special Criminal Application Nos. 971 of 2002 and 972 of 2002 be dismissed. The submissions advanced by Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted altogether for the reasons to follow. 13. Mr. C.L. Soni, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Special Criminal Application No. 150 of 2003 has contended that since the petitioner has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him, he should be released forthwith from jail custody. 14. Now, in these Special Criminal Applications, on perusing the entire record of the case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was having business relations with the complainant. The petitioner had purchased two truck-loads of black cotton-seed oil for a sum of Rs. 3,53,247-74 ps. under a transaction which took place within two days i.e., on 25-4-1985 and 30-4-1985. Towards the payment against such sale, the petitioner-original accused had issued three different cheques of different dates totalling Rs. 3,53,247-74 ps. in full and final settlement to the complainant which on presentation to the Bank were dishonoured. Against the dishonour of these three cheques, the complainant had lodged three different complaints of three different dates leaving gap of one month between each of the complaints in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. Surendranagar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, these three complaints were registered as Criminal Case Nos. 8232 and 8705 of 1995 and 108 of 1996. The accused was convicted in three different criminal cases, the occurrence in all of which took place between 20-11-1995 to 8-12-1995. The offence found against the accused in all the three criminal cases was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In Criminal Case No. 8232 of 1995, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/-. In Criminal Case No. 8705 of 1995 the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of eleven months. In Criminal Case No. 108 of 1996, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 15. In case, the accused is not given the benefit in exercise of discretion conferred under Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he may have to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 years and 11 months and also pay fine of Rs. 2,45,000/-. 5,000/-. 15. In case, the accused is not given the benefit in exercise of discretion conferred under Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he may have to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 years and 11 months and also pay fine of Rs. 2,45,000/-. Giving set off in respect of the period already undergone i.e., 3 months and 11 days, the sentence which the accused may have to undergo would come to 2 years and 7 months and fine of Rs. 2,45,000/-. 16. On the other hand, if the benefit under Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code is made available to the accused, he may have to pay only the fine of Rs. 2,45,000/- upon payment of which he would be freed by now. Reference in this connection may be beneficially had to the decision rendered in the case of Ammavasai and Others vs. Inspector of Police, Valliyanu and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3544 . 17. Having given my anxious thoughts and consideration to the issue involved in this case, I am of the firm view that in order to meet with the administration of criminal justice, the sentence imposed in Criminal Case Nos. 8705 of 1995 and 108 of 1996 should be ordered to run concurrently, and it is hereby ordered to run concurrently. Accordingly, the sentence imposed in these two criminal cases would start running only upon the termination of the sentence imposed upon him in Criminal Case No. 8232 of 1995. 18. As a result of the foregoing discussion, Special Criminal Application No. 150 of 2003 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Special Criminal Application Nos. 971 and 972 of 2002 are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms and Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated hereinabove. Order accordingly.