1. The point taken in the revision is this. The applicant Sohan was charged with two offences under Sections 326 and 148, Indian Penal Code. The learned Deputy Magistrate convicted him on both charges and sentenced him to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 326 148, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 148 but maintained the conviction under sectipn 326, Indian Penal Code. Holding that the sentence passed was not excessive, for the offence under Section 326, he uphhheld it.
2. The argument in revision is that where a judgment is framed in the form in which the Deputy Magistrate's judgment is framed it must be taken that the Magistrate intended to impose a separate sentence of nine months under each charge. In my opinion this is not what the phrase used means. Where a Magistrate convicts under two sections and intends to pass concurrent sentences it is a very common though somewhat slovenly method of expressing the conviction to say, 'I pass sentence under Sections 326/148' or whatever the sections may be. In my opinion, the sentence must be interpreted as meaning that the Magistrate passed concurrent sentences under each section. Seeing that the case was one of an attack with a gandasa the sentence was clearly not excessive on the merits. There is no reason to interfere and I reject the application.