JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as also learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioners had faced trial for the offences under Sections 420, 120-B & 406 IPC. The trial court ordered the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners in the following manner :- 1. Criminal Case No.479/2016 judgment dated 04.10.2017 Sec.406 IPC Sec. 120-B IPC Sec. 420 IPC Acquitted For One year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months simple imprisonment. For Two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.8000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo four months simple imprisonment. 2. Criminal Case No.171/2016 judgment dated 25.09.2017 Sec.406 IPC Sec.120-B IPC Sec.420 IPC Acquitted For Six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. For Two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.9000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one months simple imprisonment. 3. Criminal Case No.807/2017 judgment dated 05.12.2017 Sections 420 & 406 IPC Sec.120-B IPC Acquitted on the basis of compromise. For Three months simple imprisonment. 4. Criminal Case No.808/2017 judgment dated 05.12.2017 Sections 420 & 406 IPC Sec.120-B IPC Acquitted on the basis of compromise. For Three months simple imprisonment. 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction and sentence of the petitioners as ordered by the courts below but has submitted that substantive sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be ordered to run concurrently in all four cases. Learned counsel has submitted that in-fact, the receipts with regard to handling over of the food grains by the complainant were issued by the clerk of the petitioners. The said clerk of the petitioners was also arrayed as an accused but the said co-accused Pabudan Singh is absconding. Although, in all four cases, complainants are different but they are related to each other and similar allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. Complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that he was not in possession of any writing issued by the petitioners with regard to handling over the food grains to them. 3. To support his contention, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on following judgments :- (I)- Sanjay Sharma Vs. Complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that he was not in possession of any writing issued by the petitioners with regard to handling over the food grains to them. 3. To support his contention, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on following judgments :- (I)- Sanjay Sharma Vs. Nirmala Dadhich – S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.179/2016 & other connected cases – decided on 10.04.2017. (II)- Rakesh Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.984 & five other connected cases – decided on 26.11.2013. (III)- State of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal, reported in 2009(5) SCC 238 . (IV)- Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Criminal Misc. Petition No.43/2010. (V)- Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan – Criminal Misc. Petition No.2883/2017. (VI)- Arjun Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2016(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346. 4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to order that the substantive sentence qua imprisonment in all four cases be ordered to run concurrently. 5. Accordingly, the misc. petition stands disposed off with a direction that the substantive sentence qua imprisonment of the accused-petitioners in all four cases shall run concurrently.