Order.-This is an application sent by a convicted person from jail seeking an order that the sentences imposed on him in C.C. Nos. 83 of 1976, 90 of 1976, 167 of 1976, 169 of 1976, 170 of 1976, 172 of 1976 and 173 of 1976 should run concurrently. All these criminal cases were decided and the sentences were imposed by the same Court. The petitioner was charged and convicted under section 380 of Indian Penal Code in all the cases. 2. The sum and substance of the punishments awarded by the lower Court is that the petitioner will have to undergo total imprisonment of 3 years in all these cases. In the first case the Court awarded punishment of six month’s rigorous imprisonment. In the second case it awarded six months’ rigorous imprisonment each on three counts and gave a specific direction that this total period of 1$ years will have to run after the expiry of the 6 months’ period awarded in C.C. No. 83 of 1976. Likewise, in the other 5 cases also directions were given, after imposing punishment of rigorous imprisonment for six months under each count. Excepting in regard to the last, the Court itself gave direction as to which sentence was to run concurrently and which sentence to run consecutively. As I have already stated, the totality of the imprisonment imposed comes to 3 years. 3. The first question is whether I have got the power to grant the request of the petitioner and to direct that all the sentences should run concurrently. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code confers inherent power on the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. I do not’ think it will be proper for me to exercise my inherent power under section 482 when there is a specific direction by the Court below as to which of the sentences should run concurrently and which should run consecutively. I am of the opinion that this is more a case where I can consider this application in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code. I am of the opinion that this is more a case where I can consider this application in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code. Under that section the High Court may call for the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court and examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order and give appropriate direction. I am therefore satisfied that I can entertain the petition filed by the convicted person under section 397, Criminal Procedure Code. Mohamed Mirza, J., in Mullapudi Venkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh1held that this power can be exercised by the High Court under section 561-A read with sections 435 and 397 of the Code (old). A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held in A.S. Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh2that the High Court can exercise its discretion under sub-section (1) of section 397 and direct the sentence awarded in a subsequent trial to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in a previous trial, even after the appeals or revisions preferred by the convict against his conviction in the said trials have been dismissed. The Division Bench proceeded further to observe that sub-section (1) of section 397 confers an independent power on the Court to give such a direction. I am thus supported in my view by these two decisions. I am therefore satisfied that I have the power to consider and grant, if it is thought fit, the request made by the petitioner. 4. Then, the second question is whether I should exercise this power in this particular case and, if so, to what extent. There were as many as 7 criminal cases under section 380, Indian Penal Code wherein the petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 380, Indian Penal Code. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that interests of justice would be served if I direct that all the sentences in the other 6 cases are directed to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in C. C. No. 90 of 1976 wherein the petitioner was sentenced to 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment on 3 counts, the total punishment of which comes to 18 months. All the other sentences shall run concurrently with this sentence. All the other sentences shall run concurrently with this sentence. The consequence would be that the petitioner would now be obliged to serve a sentence of only 18 months’ rigorous imprisonment. To this extent alone the petition is allowed. 5. Since the petitioner has sent the petitions through jail and is not represented by anybody, I have requested Sri S. Bala Subba Reddy, to assist me in the disposal of this case. I am indeed very thankful to him for the very valuable assistance he has rendered to me in disposing of this case.