Ram Labhaya, J.
1. This petition of revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, U.A.D., dated the 6th April 1950 by which he confirmed the convictions of the petitioners under Sections 325 and 324, I.P.C., respectively. He maintained the sentence passed on Muhidhar. But, in the case of Gathihar the sentence was altered. This petitioner sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 months and a was fine of Rs. 50/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo R.I., for one month. The learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the term already undergone and enhanced the amount of fine to Rs. 300/-. He directed that in default of payment of fine of Rs. 300/-, he shall undergo R.I. for two months.
2. The validity of the convictions has not been challenged before me. In fact the only point argued is that the sentence in the case of Gathihar was for all practical purposes enhanced. It is pointed cut that in enhancing it the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction. The contention, I am afraid, must prevail. The effect of the order is that the petitioner will have to undergo R.I., to the extent to the term undergone plus two months in case of default of payment of fine, while according to the sentence passed on him by the trial Court the imprisonment in default of payment of fine was for one month only. The sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, is not justifiable in law and must be suitably modified.
3. I therefore order that the sentence of imprisonment passed on Gathihar shall be limited to the period already undergone. The fine is reduced to Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I., for one month only. The sentence passed on Muhidhar shall stand.
4. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.