1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore that an order sentencing certain accused persons to a fine of Rs. 30 each should be set aside in revision. The case was that the accused persons had gone to the house of one Sagar and had tried to take away by force his wife Mt. Rahiman. There were two sets of accused persons, namely, Madari and two other Mahouts of one part and six Thakurs of the other part. Madari's defence was that the woman whose real name was Mst. Mariam was his wife and that she was living with Sagar. He said further that there had been a panchayat which had decided that the woman should return to him. The Thakurs said that they had been implicated on account of enmity with Ram Lal, Sita Ram and the Sub-Inspector in charge of the police station. They maintained that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Mahouts and that there was no reason why they should help Madari to take this woman away. Madari was arrested on the spot. There can be no doubt that some attempts were made to take away the woman. The reason why the learned Sessions Judge has recommended that this Court should interfere in revision in a case which turned really on questions of fact is that the Magistrate if he believed the prosecution evidence should have framed a charge under Section 452, Penal Code., in which case he would by law have been compelled to pass a sentence of imprisonment which would give the accused persons a right of appeal. I have gone through the evidence and it appears that the only witness who says that any of the accused persons committed house trespass by entering her hut is the woman herself. The other witnesses arrived when the alarm was given and they saw the accused persons taking the woman away. The magistrate contented himself with framing a charge of an offence of rioting under Section 147, Penal Code. It certainly does not appear to me that he acted in such a way that this Court should interfere with an unappealable sentence. It is the nature of the sentence which does or does not give a right of appeal and it seems to me that it is hardly open to the accused persons to say that they should have been given a higher sentence so that they might have a right of appeal. They have been treated with leniency and therefore this Court should not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction in revision. It is certainly a fact that the appellants were guilty. The Magistrate found that they were and his decision is final. I see no reason at all to interfere and I reject the reference. The papers may be returned.