ORDER : P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J. Appellants have filed this petition under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He seeks an order directing to run the sentence imposed in this case concurrently with the sentence imposed on the petitioner in Crl.A.No. 464 of 2021. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Petitioners were the accused in Sessions Case No.541 of 2017 of the Additional Sessions Court (Special Court-II), Kottayam. They were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 325, 394 and 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC). The period of sentence imposed on the appellants for the offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code was 7 years; the lesser terms of sentence imposed for the other offences have to run concurrently. The appeal they have filed as Crl.A.No. 207 of 2021 was disposed of by judgment dated 23.02.2024. Conviction and sentence were confirmed except for reducing the amount of fine. 4. The petitioners were also the accused in Sessions Case No.542 of 2017 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kottayam. As per the judgment dated 15.10.2019, they were convicted in that case of the offence punishable under Section 450 and 394 of the IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 5 years each. The terms of the sentence were directed to run concurrently. 5. The petitioners now seek to direct the sentences imposed in both those cases to run concurrently by virtue of the provisions under Section 427 of the code. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in Crl.Appeal No.1040 of 2018 and 1302 of 2018. In both those cases, this Court ordered punishments imposed in two different cases to run concurrently. 6. The appellant in Crl.A. No. 1040 of 2018, was convicted in two sessions cases namely S.C.No.700 of 2016 an 701 of 2016. The prosecutions were for committing penetrative sexual assault on two girl children who are siblings. In sessions case No.700 of 2016 the sentence was to undergo imprisonment for life. The accused is the father. 6. The appellant in Crl.A. No. 1040 of 2018, was convicted in two sessions cases namely S.C.No.700 of 2016 an 701 of 2016. The prosecutions were for committing penetrative sexual assault on two girl children who are siblings. In sessions case No.700 of 2016 the sentence was to undergo imprisonment for life. The accused is the father. Taking those aspects into account, especially, that the punishment in one of the cases was imprisonment for life, this Court applied the provisions of Section 427 of the Code and directed to run the sentences imposed in Sessions Case No.700 of 2016 and 701 of 2016 which was confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.1040 of 2018 concurrently. 7. In Crl.Appeal No.1302 of 2018, the accused was convicted and sentenced for an offence of rape and cognate offences. He was also convicted and sentenced for a similar offence in Crl.Appeal No.677 of 2019. This Court taking into account the fact that the victim in both the cases was the same person, ordered punishments imposed in both the cases to run concurrently. 8. Here, Sessions Case No.542 of 2017, on which Crl.Appeal No.464 of 2021 arose, relates to an offence of house breaking and robbery committed at 12.15 a.m on 06.06.2017. Sessions Case No.541 of 2017, on which Crl. Appeal No. 207 of 2021 arose, relates to an offence of housebreaking and robbery committed at 12.45 a.m on 06.06.2017. The victims of offence and places of occurrence are totally different. In otherwards the offences are totally distinct. 9. In V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana and another[ (2013) 7 SCC 211 ], it was held that though it is manifest from Section 427(1), that the Court has the power and discretion to issue a direction that a subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentences, the very nature of the power so conferred, predicates that the discretion, would have to be exercised along judicial lines or not in a mechanical or pedantic manner. It was underlined that there is no cut and dried formula for the court to follow, in the exercise of such power and that the justifiability or otherwise of the same, would depend on the nature of the offence or offences committed and the attendant facts and circumstances. It was underlined that there is no cut and dried formula for the court to follow, in the exercise of such power and that the justifiability or otherwise of the same, would depend on the nature of the offence or offences committed and the attendant facts and circumstances. It was however postulated, that the legal position favours the exercise of the discretion to the benefit of the prisoners in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction, no matter even if different complaints in relation thereto might have been filed. The caveat as well was that such a concession cannot be extended to transactions which are distinctly different, separate and independent of each other and amongst others where the parties are not the same. This principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya and another [ (2016) 10 SCC 761 ]. 10. The imperative that the cases should relate to a single transaction for enabling the court to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous one was thus underscored. It was expounded as well that the direction for concurrent running of sentences would be limited to the substantive sentence alone. 11. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, benefit of Section 427 of the Code can be extended to a prisoner ordinarily where the prosecutions are based on a single transaction. Where the prosecutions are regarding distinct and independent transactions, the concession under Section 427 of the Code cannot be extended to a prisoner. The transactions involved in Crl. Appeal No.207 of 2021 and Crl.Appeal No.464 of 2021 are totally different and distinct. True, the same persons committed similar offences on the same day. But when such serious offences were committed against different victims at different places, the offences become totally distinct. The petitioners are therefore not entitled to get the benefit of Section 427 of the Code. This petition is accordingly dismissed.