JUDGMENT (PER MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) 1. Rule. By consent of Mr. N.S. Bhat, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has been convicted in three cases. The prayer of the petitioner is that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him in the three cases be made concurrent. The first case is Criminal Case No. 84/94 which was decided by the learned J.M.F.C., Warud. In this case, he was convicted under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 30 months, fine of Rs.500/, in default, S.I. for six months. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 86/07 before Sessions Court, Amravati. The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under Section 420 was upheld but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year. The fine amount and in default sentence was maintained. 3. The second case in which the petitioner has been convicted is Criminal Case No. 11/03. In the said case, he was convicted by the learned J.M.F.C., Warud under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 30 months, fine of Rs.200/, in default, S.I. for six months. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 88/07 before Sessions Court, Amravati. The said appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under Section 379 was upheld but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year. However, the fine amount and in default sentence was maintained. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 22.6.2005 in a Criminal Case under Sections 376, 452 & 506-II of Indian Penal Code. In the trial, i.e. Sessions Trial No. 200/05 the Sessions Judge, Amravati convicted the petitioner under Sections 376, 452 & 506-II of Indian Penal Code. Under Section 452 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/, in default, R.I. for 3 months; under Section 376 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/, in default, R.I. for 3 months and under Section 506-II of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/, in default, R.I. for 3 months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Trial No. 200/05, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 788/08 before this Court. By judgment and order dated 6/10/2009 this Court dismissed the appeal. 6. Thus, as far as Sessions Trial No. 200/05 is concerned, it is seen that the maximum sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is 7 years, as all the sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently. As far as the other two cases are concerned, those two cases are entirely different incidents and are in no way related to Sessions Trial No. 200/05. All the three cases are distinct and different offences, which occurred on different dates. The aggrieved parties in all the three cases were also different. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti .vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and others reported in AIR 1988 SC 2143 observed that when the two offences for which a person is prosecuted are distinct and different and they relate to different transactions, the basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called single transaction rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offences is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Krishna Sawant .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 825 has held that when the cases do not arise out of the same transaction and they arise out of different transactions, had different crime numbers and had been decided by separate judgments, it is not expedient or in the interest of justice to direct the sentence to run concurrently. 9. In the present case, the transactions are different transactions, the three cases do not arise out of the same transactions, they have different crime numbers and they have been decided by separate judgments. In such case, it is not possible to direct that all the sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently. 10. 9. In the present case, the transactions are different transactions, the three cases do not arise out of the same transactions, they have different crime numbers and they have been decided by separate judgments. In such case, it is not possible to direct that all the sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently. 10. In view of the decisions quoted above, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Fees of the appointed Advocate is quantified at Rs.750/.