7. In paramjeet Singh's case (supra), both the sentences were Under Section 379 IPC and in Rahul alias Pappu's case (supra), the offences were Under Sections 392, 395 and 365 IPC. They were of course crimes of moral turpitude and the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently but in the present case, the conviction is based on commercial transaction. Though, I would not like to make any comment with regard to any act or omission being made punishable under this Act and the sentences provided for in it but in practice, as is noticed under the garb of this Act, the Courts have been flooded with the litigation under this Act and virtually, they are being made alike recovery authorities for those who are facing trial in a fear of different sentence of imprisonment & fine. I would not like to restrain my words by saying that most of the Courts in this State, particularly at Districts, Division and Capital Head quarters, are overburdened while disposing of these cases fulfilling the aspirations of the private creditors and Banks resulting in less importance to the cases of hard core criminals, who are hazardous to the society and innocent persons languishing in jail during trial. Before summing up, I would like to state that the present case, wherein the accused petitioner has been sentenced in four different cases under the Act, if his sentences are allowed to run consecutively, then the substantive sentence will be twenty one months and in default, further imprisonment of six months. In my view, allowing the sentences to run consecutively as provided for under Section 427(1) CrPC in the present case will be too harsh and tortuous to the accused petitioner resulting in disproportionate order of sentences for the act committed. As it is the foremost
