Judgment :- JUDGMENT 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 two cases. The prayer of the petitioner is that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him in the two cases be made concurrent. The first case is Criminal Case No. 127/02 which was decided by the learned J.M.F.C., Pulgaon by judgment and order dated 20.10.2004. In this case, he was convicted under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 47/2004 before Sessions Court, Wardha. The appeal was dismissed by judgment and order dated 16.9.2009. The conviction under Section 380 and the sentence was maintained. 3] In the second case by judgment and order dated 12.1.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 155/05 the petitioner was convicted by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha under Section 395 IPC. In the said case, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 56/07 before this Court. The said appeal was dismissed. However, being aggrieved by the quantum of sentence of 5 years under Section 395 IPC, the State preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 330/07 for enhancement of sentence. The said appeal was allowed by common judgment and order dated 28.3.2008. The conviction under Section 395 was upheld and the sentence of imprisonment was enhanced to ten years. 4] When the appeal of the petitioner preferred against his conviction under Section 380 of IPC was being heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, the petitioner had prayed that the sentence of imprisonment be directed to run concurrently with the sentence in the earlier case under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge negatived the said plea and the learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run consecutively. 5] Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court praying that the sentences of imprisonment in both cases be directed to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge negatived the said plea and the learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run consecutively. 5] Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court praying that the sentences of imprisonment in both cases be directed to run concurrently. 6] As far as the two cases are concerned, these two cases are entirely different incidents and are in no way related to each other. Both the cases are distinct and different offences, which occurred on different dates. 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 socalled 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 RameshKrishna Sawant .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 825has 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. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 21.7.2011 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 341/11 in the case of Rajendra @ Rajabhat Bajrang .vs. The State of Maharashtra & another, to which both of us were parties, has taken the same view. 9] In the present case, the transactions in these two cases are different transactions, both the 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. 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/-.