ORDER : 1. Revision Petition Nos.216/2018, 217/2018, 218/2018, 219/2018, 220/2018, 221/2018, 222/2018, 223/2018, 224/2018, 225/2018, 226/2018, 227/2018, 228/2018 and 229/2018 have been preferred by the accused-petitioner whereas revision petition Nos.103/2018, 105/2018, 188/2018, 189/2018, 190/2018, 191/2018, 192/2018, 193/2018, 194/2018, 195/2018, 339/2018, 340/2018 and 341/2018 have been preferred by the complainants. 2. Accused Petitioner has preferred Revision Petitions aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offences under Section 420, 406 and 120B of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 420 IPC with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, on non-payment whereof petitioner has to undergo two months simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 406 IPC petitioner has been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Section 120B IPC to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Fine has been directed to be paid to the complainant and against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected whereas complainant has preferred Revision Petitions for enhancement of sentence. 3. It is contended by the Counsel for the accused petitioner that there are serious infirmities in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The deposit as per the complaint was taken by the Company. There is no evidence to show that the amount was received by the petitioner. It is contended that Company has not been made as an accused in the case and the conviction of the petitioner was thus bad in law. It is contended that prior to the date of maturity, complainants have filed complaints as a result of which, the amount could not be refunded to the complainants. In the alternative it is contended that the petitioner has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment in all the cases and since all the cases were decided on the same date and pertain to same offence the sentence should be directed to run concurrently. 4. Counsel for the accused petitioner in this respect has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Sanjay Sharma Vs. Nirmala Dadhich- S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.179/2016 and connected revision petitions decided on 10.04.2017 and judgment of this Court in S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.452/2017- Indraj Singh Vs. State of Raj. and other connected revision petitions decided on 31.07.2017. 4. Counsel for the accused petitioner in this respect has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Sanjay Sharma Vs. Nirmala Dadhich- S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.179/2016 and connected revision petitions decided on 10.04.2017 and judgment of this Court in S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.452/2017- Indraj Singh Vs. State of Raj. and other connected revision petitions decided on 31.07.2017. Reliance has also been placed on V.K.Bansal Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211 wherein the Apex Court has held that Courts have the discretion to direct the sentence to run concurrently. Reliance has also been placed on 2017(1) WLC(SC) Cri.461-Benson Vs. State of Kerala wherein the Apex Court directed the sentences to run concurrently. 5. Counsel for the complainant-petitioners have contended that the sentence imposed should be enhanced, prayer is made that the maximum sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment be imposed for offence under Section 420 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment be imposed for offence under Section 406 IPC. Prayer is also made for increasing the fine amount. It is contended that the police after due investigation came to the conclusion that the offence is made out against three persons; present accused, his wife and Bhaskar Lehari, Director of the Company, against whom trial is pending before the Courts below. It is contended that accused has cheated as many as 523 persons and the total amount is to the tune of about Rs. 1,32,01,000/-. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. So far as revision petitions filed by the complainants are concerned, considering the fact that none of the complainant has deposed that the amount was paid directly to the accused and also taking note of the fact that Company has not been made an accused, I do not find anything wrong in the quantum of sentence imposed, hence, the sentence imposed cannot be enhanced. 8. Consequently revision petitions filed by the complainants are dismissed. 9. However, as far as revision petitions filed by the accused are concerned, since the petitioner during the course of argument has not pressed the impugned orders on merit and his only contention is that the sentences be directed to run concurrently in view of the judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the accused, this Court does not deem it proper to go into the merits of the case and confine its order to the sentence. 10. 10. This Court in Indraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) was ceased with a similar type of matter, therein the petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 420, 406 IPC and Chit Fund Act. This Court after discussing the various judgments of the Apex Court and Rajasthan High Court partly allowed the revision petitions and directed the sentences to run concurrently. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Sanjay Sharma Vs. Nirmala Dadhich (supra) where the conviction in different cases was under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court directed the sentences to run concurrently. 11. The Apex Court in V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Haryana (supra) was also dealing with the cases under the Negotiable Instrument Act. The Apex Court directed the sentence to run concurrently. The Apex Court in Benson Vs. State of Kerala (supra) was dealing with the matters pertaining to theft and observed that there was nothing wrong in the quantum of sentence imposed in respect of the respective crimes. However, going by the sentence calculation, the sentence imposed in respect of the first crime started w.e.f. 20.11.2003 and the last sentence would be over by 19.08.2022, which would effectively mean that the total length of sentences in aggregate would be around 19 years. In the case before the Apex Court the sentence in respect of 8th crime was running against the appellant. The Court directed that sentence in respect of crime Nos. 9 to 12 would run concurrently with the sentence imposed in crime No.8. 12. In the present case in hand, the sentence which has been passed would run for 42 years if the same is not directed to run concurrently as the sentence imposed in each of the case is three years rigorous imprisonment. 13. In view of the judgment of this Court and Apex Court and the peculiar facts of this case, also taking note of the fact that the Company was not made an accused and none of the complainants have deposed that the amount was paid directly to the petitioner, I deem it proper to partly allow the revision petitions. 14. The revision petitions are partly allowed. While upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below, it is directed that the substantive sentences passed against the petitioners in the above cases would run concurrently. 14. The revision petitions are partly allowed. While upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below, it is directed that the substantive sentences passed against the petitioners in the above cases would run concurrently. However, the petitioners would be required to to pay the fine imposed by the Court and in default of payment of fine to undergo the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine. Sentence in lieu of non-payment of fine would run consecutively. 15. The Revisions Petitions filed by accused petitioner are accordingly partly allowed whereas the Revision Petitions filed by the complainant are dismissed. 16. The applications for suspension of sentence also stand disposed. 17. Copy of the order be placed in each file. 18. Record of the Court below be returned forthwith. 19. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court by fax/email today itself with a direction to serve a photostat copy of the same to the petitioner and an additional copy of this order be also sent to the concerned Court by ordinary process.