Substantive sentences for distinct offenses consolidated during trial may be ordered to run concurrently to the period already undergone.

The applicant was convicted in two separate criminal cases involving bank fraud.

In Criminal Case No. 1838/2009 (arising from FIR I-C.R. No. 101/2008), he was found guilty of stealing cheques from Bank of Baroda and withdrawing ₹2,80,000.

In Criminal Case No. 1828/2009 (arising from FIR I-C.R. No. 108/2009), he was convicted for attempting to withdraw money using a false identity and forged documents.

The Trial Court sentenced him to a maximum of three years' rigorous imprisonment in both cases but issued contradictory directions regarding whether the sentences should run concurrently or separately.

The first Appellate Court confirmed these convictions on 03.01.2019.

The applicant challenged the orders through these revision applications, primarily contesting the duration and nature of the sentences.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in passing contradictory orders regarding the concurrent or separate execution of sentences in two related trials.

2. Whether the applicant's sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone (approx. 2 years and 9 months) given the nature of the offenses and his conduct post-bail.

Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), regarding the High Court's revisional jurisdiction to correct patent errors in lower court judgments.

Section 427 of the CrPC, which governs the sentencing of offenders already undergoing imprisonment for another offense.

Section 428 of the CrPC, concerning the set-off of the period of detention undergone by the accused against the sentence of imprisonment.

The High Court observed a "patent error" in the Trial Court's judgment, noting that while one order suggested concurrent sentencing, another directed the sentences to be served separately despite the applicant being arrested for both FIRs on the same day (10.06.2009).

The Court analyzed the applicant’s custody record, noting he had already served approximately 2 years and 9 months for the first FIR and 2 years and 5 months for the second.

The Court determined that since the applicant was only 3 months shy of the maximum 3-year term and a police report confirmed no subsequent criminal involvement, a liberal approach was warranted.

The Court exercised its discretion to harmonize the sentences under Sections 427 and 428 of the CrPC to ensure they run concurrently.

The Court specifically held that the periods of detention served for both cases shall be treated as concurrent under the provisions of Sections 427 and 428 of the CrPC.

The Revision Applications were partly allowed.