(1.) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the convicted person/petitioner in order to invoking the extra ordinary powers against order for sentences rejecting the prayer of concurrent sentences.

(2.) Undisputedly, seven different persons have filed the complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in which petitioner has been convicted for rigorous imprisonment 6 months and fine in each case. Except one case in which sentence was awarded for two years imprisonment, on appeal No. 168/2010 the sentence was reduced for 6 months.

(3.) It is submitted that against sentences appeals were preferred. In appeal No. 165/10 and 166/10 decided on 14.10.2010 2 and Appeal No. 167/10 decided on 24.11.10, Appeal No. 168/10 decided on 27.11.10, Appeal No.169/10 and 170/10 decided on 20.11.10 and Appeal No. 172 decided on 27.11.10.

(4.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a lady and she is in jail since more than 8 months. All of her sentence to be ordered run concurrently under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., but not ordered, hence this petition has been filed by the applicant. The same prayer was made before the Appellate Authority, A.S. J. Khandwa in all Criminal Appeals, but that prayer was rejected, hence this petition has been preferred.

(5.) Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

(6.) Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on authority Mohan Bhanudas Mohitre Vs. State of Maharashtra 2004 Cri.L.J. 2948 (Bombay High Court) in which it has been held that If no rider of Section 32 of N.D.P.S. Act, then concurrent sentence may be awarded. He also placed reliance on authority Mohd. Akhbtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, AIR 1988 SC 2143 [LQ/SC/1988/439] in which it has been held that under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., about Consecutive and concurrent sentences be made where transaction relating to offences not same or facts constituting two different offences, are quite different, consecutive sentences may be imposed. The aforesaid authorities do not help the applicant. 3

(7.) He further made reliance on Shafiq S/o Jahur Ahmed Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2010 (1) MPLJ pg. 225, wherein it has been held that where two different complaints made of same respondent conviction under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., all sentences are run concurrently has been ordered but in this case complaints are different so this case is not applicable, for this it has been cited.

"In the matter of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, (Prevention), Ahmedabad reported in AIR 1988 SC 2143 [LQ/SC/1988/439] where in Honble Apex Court held as under :- The basic rule of thumb over the years has been the so-called transactions rule for concurrent sentences. If a given transaction constitutes two enactments generally, it is wrong to have consecutive sentences. It is proper and legitimate to have concurrent sentences. But this rule has no application if the transaction relating to offence is not the same or the facts constituting the two offences are quite different."

(8.) The copy of the judgment of lower Court has not been filed but copy of the judgment of Sessions Judge, Khandwa has been filed. It is very much clear that applicant has been convicted in complaint cases filed by different complainants, so under Section 427 of Cr.P.C.,advantage of concurrent sentences of all cases can not be extended to the applicant.

(9.) The applicant Ku. Rekha Mishra was punished by the trail Court on each complaint, by different complainants and awarded sentence for 6 months rigorous imprisonment and in each case six months imprisonment is there, in each case sentence cannot be 4 ordered to run concurrently as in the trial Court there was different acts of the accused on different complaints, therefore this petition has no merits.

(10.) Consequently, this petition is dismissed. (M.A. Siddiqui)