MUNNA LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in this case is whether the applicants have a right of appeal, THEy were all charged under two sections of the Indian Penal Code, 323 and 427. "But the Magistrate in passing his final order said : "THE charge is brought home to the accused.... I fine each of them Rs. 50." THE applicants appealed to the Sessions Judge, who held that no appeal lay because the applicants had only been fined Rs. 50, so that under Section 413, Criminal P.C. they could not take the matter further. It has been argued that this decision of the learned Sessions Judge is wrong, and that Section 413 read with Section 415, Criminal P.C. will so operate as to give the applicants a right of appeal. THE argument is that as the applicants were charged with two offences and have not been acquitted of either and as the finding is one that the applicants are guilty, it follows that both charges have been brought home to them and that, the sentence of fine imposed must be deemed to be a combination of two punishments, one for each of the offences which have been committed. It is true that the order of the Magistrate is ambiguous. It was open to him to acquit the applicants of one of the charges and convict of one, or to convict of both and to pass sentience on both charges. He has done neither. THE question is which must he be deemed to have done. THE Sessions Judge's interpretation of his order is that he intended to convict under Section 323 and to acquit under Section 427. It is possible that this is not what the Magistrate intended to do, but it is at any rate a reasonable interpretation of the order. THE other interpretation would be and it is this which the applicants counsel wishes me to accept that the Magistrate intended to convict on both charges; and that by inadvertence he has only sentenced the applicants for one offence.

(2.) IN the absence of any indication that the Magistrate intended to pass two sentences or one sentence consisting of two punishments. I cannot hold that the Sessions Judge was clearly wrong in holding that the applicants had no right of appeal. There is therefore no need to interfere, and the application is dismissed.