The power of the Court to order concurrent sentences under Section 397, r/w 401, Cr.P.C. or under the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the period of sentence imposed, and the conduct of the accused.

The petitioners, claiming themselves as Lawyers by profession, have preferred this revision against the common order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in the applications filed by them in Crl.M.P. Nos. 6654 and 7009 of 1997 dated 22-9-1997.

2. The prayer made in Crl.M.P. No. 6654 of 1997 dated 30-8-1997, the petition for Court release, is as follows :-

"No other sentence remains to be completed by the petitioners including the sentences awarded by this Hon'ble Court. No other case pending against the petitioners in any other Court.

It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to depute the concerned Staff member dealing with the release of the petitioners to inform this Hon'ble Court by 2-9-1997 about formalities if any to be completed for granting Court release of the petitioners as prayed for and thus render justice."

3. The prayer made by the petitioners in the memo in Crl.M.P. No 7009 of 1997 dated 11-9-1997 is this :-

"On 27-8-1997 Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court reduced the 3 years sentence of the High Court and granted release to the petitioners arising out of health complications which require immediate medical attention to avoid major operations.

Whereas till this date the petitioners are unable to achieve their actual release because of the pendency of the PT Warrants of this Hon'ble Court.

So far as the sentences of this Hon'ble Court the petitioners have already fully undergone the same.

There is no other impediment for the Court release of the petitioners herein except the PT Warrants of this Hon'ble Court."

4. In short, the request of the petitioners made in these two applications before the learned Sessions Judge, at Chennai, is to release the petitioners by recalling the PT Warrants, as they have already undergone the period of imprisonment imposed in the earlier cases including the case in which this Court convicted and imposed sentence.

5. The learned Sessions Judge by the common order dated 22-9-1997 rejected the prayers on the basis of the objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent holding that the period of sentence imposed on the petitioners in the cases by the various Courts for various offences has not expired. The relevant observation by the Sessions Court is this :-

"In all the above cases, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment by different judgments of this Court in different cases on various dates. Hence all these convictions and sentences will have to be undergone by the petitioners one after another, in view of the provision of Section 427, Cr.P.C. Apart from the above in all the said cases, the Court has imposed fine on the petitioners and in default of payment of fine to undergone a further imprisonment for a particular period. Admittedly the petitioners have not paid the fine amounts as ordered by the Court ........... Under the aforesaid circumstances, it is not correct on the part of the petitioners to State that except the pending PT warrants there was no impediment to release them."

With these observations, the petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed. Hence, this revision.

6. The petitioners as party-in-person would contend that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have released the petitioners since the jail warrant would show that the sentences imposed in the earlier cases were made concurrent. In any event, it is strenuously submitted by the petitioners that this Court has got powers either under Section 397, r/w 401, Cr.P.C. or under the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and that this Court could release the petitioners by observing all the sentences imposed in earlier cases should run concurrently.

7. In support of the said submission, they cited the following decisions :-

(1) Venkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 AP 449 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 377);

(2) Sis Ram v. Emperor, AIR 1929 All 585 : (30 Cri LJ 904).

(3) Nagap