Judgment :- 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. 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, (2) Sis Ram v. Emperor, 1929 AIR(All) 585 : 30 CrLJ 904) (3) Nagappa Vyankappa Sali v. Emperor, 1931 AIR(Bom) 529 (1) : 33 CrLJ 77); (4) Baijinath v. State, 1961 AIR(Pat) 138 : 1961 (1) CrLJ 423 ); (5) A. S. Naidu v. State, 1975 CrLJ 498 ); (6) Ulfat v. State, 1970 CrLJ 767 8. In opposing the submission made by the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate would cite the following authorities :- (1) In Re Nachimuthu, 1958 AIR(Madras) 452 : 1958 CrLJ 1197); (2) Mohd. A. Hussain v. Asst. Collector, Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad,; (3) R. K. Sawant v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 CrLJ 1702 ; (4) Sukumaran v. State 1993 CrLJ 3228 ); (5) Nilgiris Bar Association v. T. K. Mahalingam, 1988 SCC(Cri) 450 : 1998 CrLJ 675 ). 9. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side. 10. Even at the threshold, I shall point out that though the petitioners were convicted totally in 10 cases, the petitioners obtained the orders for the sentences to run concurrently only in two cases from this High Court, one on 18-12-1996 in W.P. Nos. 4538 to 4542 of 1996 and on 29-1-1997 in Suo Motu Contempt Application No. 196 of 1996. In all the other cases, admittedly, there is no judicial order either by the lower Court in which the sentences were imposed or by this Court in the appeal filed against those sentences. 11. The details of the cases in which the petitioners were convicted, are as follows :- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. S.C. No. Court Section under Date of con- Conviction details/ No. which con- viction punishment awarded. victed --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. W.P. Nos. 4538 to High Court, 193, IPC & amp; 18-12-96 Imprisonment for 3 years 4542/96 Chennai Contempt of and six months. The Court. sentences to run concurrently. The sentence reduced to imprisonment for two years by the High Court, Chennai WA No. 102/97 dt. 30-8-97. 2. 5/96 Prl.S.J., 138, Negoti- 25-1-97 S.I. for 6 months and Chennai able instru- fine Rs. 25, 000/- in ments Act. default S.I. for 3 months. 3. Suo Motu Contempt High Court, Contempt of 29-1-97 Imprisonment for six Appln. No. 182/96 Chennai. Court. months and fine Rs. 2000/- i.d. imprisonment for one month. 4. 42/95 Prl.S.J., 120/B r/w 406, 11-2-97 R.I. one year u/s 406 and Chennai 420, 406, 420 420 and fine Rs. 7500 under each count i.d. R.I. for 3 months. The sentences to run concurrently. 5. CC. 18/95 -do- 420 r/w 34, 11-2-97 R.I. for 1 year and fine IPC Rs. 2500/- i.d. R.I. for 3 months. The sentence will run concurrently with CC. No. 42/95. 6. CC. 78/95 -do- 420, IPC 14-2-97 R.I. for 1 year and fine Rs. 7500 under each count i.d. R.I. for 3 months. The sentences to run concurrently. 5. CC. 18/95 -do- 420 r/w 34, 11-2-97 R.I. for 1 year and fine IPC Rs. 2500/- i.d. R.I. for 3 months. The sentence will run concurrently with CC. No. 42/95. 6. CC. 78/95 -do- 420, IPC 14-2-97 R.I. for 1 year and fine Rs. 7500/- i.d. R.I. for 3 months. 7. CC. 84/95 -do- 420 r/w 34, 25-2-97 R.I. for one year and IPC fine Rs. 7500/- i.d. R.I. for 3 months. 8. CC. 31/95 -do- 420, IPC 6-3-97 R.I. for 1 year and fine Rs. 20000/- i.d. R.I. for 3 months. 9. CC. 17/95 -do- 420 r/w 34, 11-3-97 R.I. for 1 year and fine IPC Rs. 7500/- i.d. for 3 months. 10. CC. 85/95 -do- 420, IPC 25-9-97 R.I. for 1 year and fine Rs. 2500/- i.d. R.I. for 3 months --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Even in the applications filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P. Nos. 6654 and 7009 of 1997 there is no prayer for direction to run the sentences concurrently in all the other eight cases. As indicated earlier, the prayer is to release them, as they have already prayer is to release them, as they have already undergone the sentences imposed in all those cases. In such a circumstance, the learned Principal Sessions Judge pointed out that the period of sentences imposed in various cases including the sentence of fine have not expired. 13. It is seen from the records that in default of payment of fine in these cases, they were directed to undergo imprisonment for three months in each case. Therefore, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has no other alternative except to dismiss the applications filed by the petitioners rejecting their prayers on the particulars given by the petitioners which were incorrect. 14. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 15. Coming to the powers of this Court, as held by this Court as well as the other Courts, I may point out that there is no difficulty with reference to the existence of power. But the question is as to whether such a power could be exercised when and at what stage and whether it is a fit case for the exercise of such power. 16. But the question is as to whether such a power could be exercised when and at what stage and whether it is a fit case for the exercise of such power. 16. As adverted to by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, these are the cases in which fine also was imposed and in default, they were directed to undergo imprisonment. In this connection, Section 429, Cr.P.C. is relevant. Section 429(2) enjoins that, effect shall not be given to the award of imprisonment, in default of payment of the fine until the person has undergone the further sentence or sentences. In view of the section, the question of passing such a direction as required by the petitioners would not arise in the case of default sentence. 17. In the cases convicted by the lower Court, it is stated, the appeals have been filed before this Court and the same are pending. In the light of the said situation, I am of the view that it is for the petitioners to ask for such a prayer only at the time of final disposal of those appeals, especially when they have failed to ask for such a direction from the trial Court, while the conviction and sentence were imposed upon them. 18. However, I must, at this stage, refer to the judgment of the Apex Court which has been rendered recently and reported in 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 450 : 1998 CrLJ 675 ) (supra) with reference to the undesirability of the passing of such orders by showing misplaced sympathy on the persons, more particularly in the cases where the legal profession was misused by the persons calling themselves as Lawyers. The observation is as follows at page 678 (of Cri LJ) :- "While adverting to the nature of the offence we bear in mind the necessity to weed out imposters in the professions which require special learning and training, particularly at a time when such imposters are proliferating in the society. Any leniency shown to such wiles would certainly tend to sprout up weeds at menacing scales. The case of the respondent is not one of single lapse or even multiple delinquencies confined to a few days. Any leniency shown to such wiles would certainly tend to sprout up weeds at menacing scales. The case of the respondent is not one of single lapse or even multiple delinquencies confined to a few days. The long period of 8 years during which the mounte bank had successfully indulged in interloping as a qualified and learned counsel would have considerably eroded public confidence in the probity of the legal profession particularly in that area and besmirched the reputation of that Bar as the public might be looking upon every other member of the profession with suspectful eyes. The trial Magistrate and the learned single Judge, who found a repenting mind in the respondent, have failed to notice that repentance had dawned on him, even if that also was not a pretension, only when he reached a culde-sac. When he was masquerading himself every day in sartorial costumes prescribed only for accredited members of the legal profession it did not occur to him even once during the long period of eight years to think of repentance. On the contrary, he was flourishing at large and had even become the Secretary of the Bar Association. If the vigilant Bar had not discovered the trickery, perhaps he would still have persisted in his art of cheating. For all these reasons we are of the definite opinion that the crimes committed by him should have been dealt with deterrently and the ameliorative reliefs envisaged in Section 4 of the Act should have been kept at bay." 19. On the strength of this observation made by the Supreme Court on similar facts of the case, the learned Government Advocate would oppose for showing any sort of sympathy to the petitioners who are said to have been indulged by cheating gullible public by misusing their legal profession. He would also submit that apart from the ten cases in which they were convicted, trial is pending in others 46 cases. 20. In view of the strong objection which I consider valid, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant any relief sought for by the petitioners in this revision. However, it is open to the petitioners to seek the relief at the time of final disposal of the appeals against conviction before this Court if so advised. 21. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 5080 of 1997 stands dismissed.