Hon’ble Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) : In all these petitions, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 09.09.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (herein referred ‘the Act’) and was ordered to undergo the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ‘ 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months with a stipulation that period of detention already undergone by him be set off against the substantive period of imprisonment. 2. It may also be noticed that all the three cases relates to separate instances of cheque bouncing and three separate judgments were passed on three complaints. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib by filing separate appeals. However, the same were dismissed vide judgment dated 02.03.2009. 3. These three petitions have been filed after a lapse of almost about three years and petitioners are about to complete substantive period of their sentence, in all the three cases. 4. It is also a matter of record that petitioners had earlier filed a Criminal Misc. No.5894 of 2010 (O&M) for issuance of a direction to the respondent No.2 to treat the period of imprisonment undergone by them as concurrently in all the petitions. However, this Court vide its judgment dated 10.08.2010 dismissed the said petition holding that the same was not maintainable as the petitioners had failed to invoke the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. during the trial or in appeal. 5. Thereafter, the petitioners also moved separate applications in all three cases which are before this Court for passing an order to run the sentence concurrently. However, the said applications were dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib vide its judgment dated 28.5.2011. Even the revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment dated 25.10.2011. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioners, wherein, their prayer to direct the sentence in all three petitions to run concurrently was declined. Now these three revision petitions have been filed after a lapse of almost three years i.e. when the petitioners have already completed the total period of sentence even the sentence has run consecutively. 6. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioners, wherein, their prayer to direct the sentence in all three petitions to run concurrently was declined. Now these three revision petitions have been filed after a lapse of almost three years i.e. when the petitioners have already completed the total period of sentence even the sentence has run consecutively. 6. Not only this, admittedly, petitioners have never raised this issue before the trial Court or Appellate Authority. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in these petitions and are liable to be dismissed. 7. Ordered accordingly. 8. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the present revision petitions with liberty to challenge the order dated 25.10.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. Petitioners are at liberty to challenge the order dated 25.10.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, passed in these three petitions, in accordance with law. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.