Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-petitioner Ajay @ Harendra, who has been convicted and sentenced in three different criminal cases in the following manner: Sessions Case No. Judgment Dated Offence Sentence to undergo Confinement during trial 376/2009 22.05.2010 392 IPC 3 Years with fine of Rs.5000/- 1 years, 1 month and 23 days 138/2009 22.05.2010 394/34 IPC 2 Years with fine of Rs.2000/- 1 years, 1 month and 24 days 170/2009 06.07.2010 392 IPC 3 Years with fine of Rs.2000/- 1 years, 2 month and 26 days 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that sentence awarded to petitioner in all three cases are not running concurrently while petitioner is serving it one by one therefore he has not been released in any case. As per Para no.1 of the petition, petitioner has stated that he was arrested on 29.03.2009 in Sessions Case No.138/2009 and since then he is behind the bar, meaning thereby he has served out the sentence of three years, four months and eight days. Petitioner has now been required to undergo full term of sentence consecutively in each of these cases, which in effect would mean that despite there being a common and overlapping period of confinement in all the three cases, he would have to separately undergo the sentence of seven years, 11 months. 3. Learned counsel citing provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure argued that even if sentences have been awarded in different trials by separate judgments, they are nevertheless required to run concurrently because it is the same person who is convicted. Learned counsel in support of this argument has cited judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Madan Lal - (2009) 5 SCC 238 = 2009(2) RLW 929 (SC), division bench judgment of this Court in Vimal Mehra vs. State & Ors.-2008(3) WLC (Raj.) 624 = 2008(4) RLW 3062, and single bench judgments of this Court in Achalchand Sancheti vs. State of Raj.-2010(3) WLC (Raj.) 304 = 2010(3) RLW 1978, Mahavir Sharma vs. State-2007 WLC (Raj.) UC 786, Hardeva & Ors. vs. State -2004(1) WLC (Raj.) 295. and Mahavir Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan – 2007(2) R.C.C. 500 and Shishram @ Shisho vs. State of Rajasthan – 2011(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 892. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. vs. State -2004(1) WLC (Raj.) 295. and Mahavir Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan – 2007(2) R.C.C. 500 and Shishram @ Shisho vs. State of Rajasthan – 2011(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 892. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. He, however, could not justify why in the face of specific provisions of Section 427, sentences awarded to petitioner in different three trials by different judgments, should not be ordered to run concurrently. 5. A perusal of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. There is however a proviso to Section 427 of Cr.P.C. to the effect 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. 6. A coordinate bench of this Court in Mahavir Sharma, supra, was called upon to decide similar question wherein accused was convicted for different spells in ten separate trials. Following ratio of various earlier judgments of this Court and division bench of Calcutta High Court in Janta Kumar Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal- AIR 1955 Cal. 632 , sentences awarded to the accused in that case were ordered to run concurrently. 7. In Achalchand Sancheti, supra also it was observed that allowing sentences to run consecutively would be too harsh on the accused. Sentences as awarded to the accused in more than one case was therefore ordered to run concurrently. 8. In the case of Madan Lal, supra the Supreme Court was dealing with the case where all the transactions related to the family of the accused-respondent and matter pertained to different cheques issued by the respondent to complainant, for which purpose, separate complaints were filed. The accused was convicted in three different trials and sentenced to undergo sentence for different durations. High Court allowing the petition filed by the accused u/s.482 Cr.P.C. directed the sentenced awarded in those cases to run concurrently. State of Punjab filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment. The accused was convicted in three different trials and sentenced to undergo sentence for different durations. High Court allowing the petition filed by the accused u/s.482 Cr.P.C. directed the sentenced awarded in those cases to run concurrently. State of Punjab filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment. Supreme Court in those facts rejected the appeal holding that the discretion exercised by High Court in directing sentences in all the three cases to run concurrently was just and proper. 9. There is another angle to the matter which needs to be noticed which is that sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 427 has provided 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. This underlines the intention of the legislature that even the life convicts have been held entitled to benefit of subsequent sentence, be it life term or of any lesser term, being run concurrently. In the case of those, who have been awarded sentence of lesser duration than life, obviously a different yardstick cannot be applied unless there are compelling reasons to do so. For the convicts who have been awarded imprisonment of life, however, the benefit of set off under Sec. 428 has been held to be not admissible by judgment of Supreme Court in Kartar Singh vs. State of Haryana-AIR 1982 SC 1433. But in this case, the petitioner would also be entitled to avail the benefit of set off as far as period of his confinement during investigation or trial of each case in which he has been eventually convicted, against the term of imprisonment awarded to him in terms of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. However, such benefit of setting off the period of confinement as against the sentence awarded to the petitioner in respective case should start running from the date, he was formally shown arrested in that particular case and counting from that date onwards when he completes maximum period of sentence, in each of the three cases, he would be entitled to release. 10. In the result, this petition is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the petitioner in Sessions Case No.138/2009, Criminal Case No.170/2009 and Criminal Case No.376/2009 vide judgments dated 22.05.2010, 06.07.2010 and 22.05.2010 respectively shall run concurrently in the terms indicated above.