JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. on behalf of the petitioners has been filed in the following circumstances. The petition.-rs and Ram Chander and Chanderpal were convicted in original criminal case Nos. 95 and 83. They filed appeals Nos. 127 and 128 before the Sessions Judge, but the appeals were dismissed though some sentence was reduced vide judgments even dated 16-10-1979. The petitioners were further convicted and sentenced in yet another criminal case No. 158/79. They preferred an appeal No. 115/79 and the appellate court directed that the petitioners shall undergo the sentence awarded in the case under appeal concurrently with any other previous sentence. The petitioners as also Ram Chander and Chanderpal preferred revisions in this Court as against these appellate judgments. Revision No. 420/79 was preferred on behalf of the three petitioners only and it was summarily rejected. In the other two revisions, the petitioners revision was also rejected relating to the other two appeals but those of Ramchander and Chanderpal were admitted and ultimately accepted. It was directed that the sentences awarded to Ramchander and Chanderpal would run concurrently with regard to both the cases. Thereafter the petitioners have preferred this petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the case of the petitioners is in no way different from the other accused persons viz , Ramchander and Chanderpal. This Court should not have dismissed revisions No. 384 and 385/79 of the petitioners summarily. In any case while rejecting summarily these revisions, the Court overlooked the tact that the cases of all the three petitioners and the other co-accused were identical.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that application under Sec 482 Cr. P.C. was not maintainable, in such circumstances He further contend that the case of the petitioners is distinct from Ramchander and Chanderpal. I have considered the argument carefully. I may observe that while awarding a sentence to an accused, over all circumstances have to be considered and one accused cannot contend that because the other accused was let of with a lighter sentence, therefore, he should also be awarded a lighter sentence. I have considered the argument carefully. I may observe that while awarding a sentence to an accused, over all circumstances have to be considered and one accused cannot contend that because the other accused was let of with a lighter sentence, therefore, he should also be awarded a lighter sentence. That apart, there was reasonable justification for summarily dismissing the revision petitions of the petitioners, they were convicted in three cases and in the last case it was directed by the appellate court that the sentence awarded in this case shall run concurrently with any other sentence which the petitioners were undergoing. Thus the petitioners though convicted in three cases are going to suffer consecutive sentence in two cases only the sentence in the third case being ordered to run concurrently. This is the distinguishing factor between the case of the petitioners and Ramchander and Chanderpal The apart, another distinguishing factor is that the petitioners stand convicted in three cases while Ramchander and Chanderpal received sentence only in two cases. In this view I do not find it a fit case where the inherent discretion of this Court may be exercised. This fact was within the notice of the court when the orders in the three revision petitions at the preliminary stage were made because all the three revisions were taken up for hearing together. 3. Another interesting point that was raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that after the three revisions of the petitioners had been dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. does not lie on their behalf There appears to become divergence of judicial opinion in this regard specially in view of the observations made in Palaniappa Gounder v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (AIR 1977, S.C. page 1323) : "If there is an express provision in a statute governing a particular subject-matter there is no scope for invoking or exercising the inherent powers of the Court because the Court ought to apply the provisions of the statute which are made advisedly to govern the particular subject-matter. (AIR 1977, S.C. page 1323) : "If there is an express provision in a statute governing a particular subject-matter there is no scope for invoking or exercising the inherent powers of the Court because the Court ought to apply the provisions of the statute which are made advisedly to govern the particular subject-matter. Thus the application made by the heirs of the deceased for compensation could not have been made under Section 482 since Section 357 expressly confers power on the court to pass an order for payment of compensation in the circumstances mentioned therein." However, this point need not be decided in this petition because I have examined the petition on merits and found it devoid of any force. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******