1. This is an application for revision of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in C.A. No. 7 of 1939. That appeal was presented to the learned Sessions Judge from the decision of the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate, Markapur, in C.C. No. 48 of 1938. In that case the First Class Magistrate was dealing with 24 persons who had been tried by the Stationary Second Class Magistrate of Giddalore in C.C. No. 593 of 1937. The learned Sub-Magistrate found all the 24 accused persons guilty of rioting (Section 147, I.P.C.,) wrongful confinement (Section 341, I.P.C.,) assault with intent to dishonour (Section 355, I.P.C.,) and simple hurt (Section 323, I.P.C.,) read with Section 149, I.P.C. He convicted them under those Sections but considering that they were persons who might properly be dealt with under Section 582, Criminal P.C., he submitted the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the provisions of Section 562(1) proviso. The learned First Class Magistrate dealing with the case under the provisions of Section 380, Criminal P.C., convicted all the 24 accused of rioting (Section 147, I.P.C.) and sentenced them for that offence to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each and accused 6 and 24 be convicted also under Section 355, I.P.C., and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each for that offence. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not say what he proposed to do with regard to the other convictions which had already been recorded by the Sub-Magistrate. But that is a matter which is not before us now and we do not propose to interfere with it.
2. The appeal presented to the learned Sessions Judge was on behalf of accused 23 only. He had been convicted only of rioting (Section 147, I.P.C.,) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20. Under Section 413, Criminal P.C., accused 23 would ordinarily have no right of appeal but the appeal was filed on his behalf under the provisions of Section 415-A. It was alleged that accused 6 and 24 having been sentenced to pay two fines of Rs. 20 and Rs. 25 had a right of appeal under Section 415-A and therefore accused 23 having been convicted at the same trial had also a right of appeal. The learned Sessions Judge has held that none of the 24 accused had any right of appeal in this case. He therefore rejected the appeal referring accused 23 to an application for revision to this Court if so advised. Accused 23 has applied for revision of the order of the' learned Sessions Judge. The only authority of this Court quoted by learned Counsel for the petitioner is the decision of King J., in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. Kollur Dasa Pai (1936) M.W.N. 213. That was a case in which on a summary trial a First Class-Bench of Magistrates had sentenced one of several persons convicted under the Gaming Act to pay a fine of Rs. 25 for an offence under Section 9 and a fine of Rs. 50 for an offence under Section 8. The persons convicted appealed to the Sessions Judge, and he held that an appeal lay. The learned Public Prosecutor filed a revision petition against that decision and King J. held that the learned Sessions Judge's decision was correct. With respect we think that the decision of King J. in that case was wrong. The matter depends upon the interpretation of Section 415, Criminal P.C., which says:
3. An appeal may be brought against any sentence referred to in Section 413 or Section 414 by which any two or more of the punishments therein mentioned are combined, but no sentence which would not otherwise be liable to appeal shall be appealable merely on the ground that the person convicted is ordered to find security to keep the peace.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate when he imposed upon accused 6 and 24 two fines of Rs. 20 and Rs. 25 respectively was passing a sentence combining two of the punishments referred to in Section 413. Now Section 413 is as follows:
Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in cases in which a Court of Session passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month only or in which a Court of Session or District Magistrate or other Magistrate of the First Class passes a sentence of fine not exceeding Rupees 50 only.
5. There are two punishments here mentioned (1) imprisonment and (2) fine. But it is pointed out that in Section 415 there is a reference to 'any two or more' of the punishments mentioned in Section 413 or Section 414 and since in Section 413 there are only two kinds of punishments mentioned and in Section 414 there is one kind of punishment mentioned, namely the punishment of fine, it is argued that if there are two or more sentences of fine this must be regarded as a sentence combining two of the punishments mentioned in Section 413 or Section 414. We are unable to accept this argument. We are of opinion that Section 415 when it refers to two or more punishments is referring to two or more punishments of different kinds. The history of the Code is we think important in this connexion and makes the matter clear. When Section 415 was just enacted there were three kinds of punishments provided in both Sections 413 and 414, namely in Section 413 a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month only, fine not exceeding Rs. 50 only or whipping only and in Section 414 a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding three months only, fine not exceeding two hundred rupees only or whipping only. In those circumstances although it might possibly be argued that Section 415 was to some extent superfluous, it could not be argued that it had no meaning. It was clear that it meant to refer to sentences in which two or more different kinds of punishments referred to in Section 413 and Section 414 were combined. After the modifications in Section 413 and Section 414 introduced in 1923 it is impossible to attribute any real meaning to the phrase 'any two or more of the punishments therein mentioned' in Section 415 so far as it relates at any rate to Section 414. It is clear, we think, as Edgley J. stated in Kali Charan v. Adhar Mandal : AIR1939Cal274 that Section 415 has no application in a case in which two non-appealable sentences of fine have been passed and the aggregate amount of fine does not exceed Rs. 50. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of the Oudh Chief Court reported in Kandhai v. Emperor A.I.R. (1932) Oudh. 27 and Markand Singh v. Ganga and also upon the decision of Cuming J. in the case reported in Akbbbar Ali v. Emperor : AIR1931Cal642 . With respect we are not able to agree with those decisions. We prefer the opinion o Mitter J. in the case reported in Nawabali Haji v. Joinab Bibi and the view of the learned Chief Justice of Bombay and Crump J. in the case reported in Shidlingappa v. Emperor : AIR1926Bom416 . Our decision can be rested upon the words of Section 415 itself. It is not possible in this case to say that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has passed any sentence by which any two or more of the punishments mentioned in Section 413 are combined. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate did not combine any of the punishments in either of the sentences that he imposed. He imposed two separate sentences of fine. There is no combination of punishments in one sentence within the meaning of Section 415, Criminal P.C. We think therefore that the learned Sessions Judge was correct and that this application for revision must be dismissed.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has attempted to persuade us to interfere in revision finally against the order of the learned Subdivisional Magistrate. That is hot the prayer in the petition which is for revision of the order passed by the learned. Sessions Judge. But in so far as this is concerned we observe that the grounds taken for saying that the learned Subdivisional Magistrate was wrong in convicting accused 23 (present petitioner) are all grounds of, fact and not connected with any question : of law. Learned Counsel points out that the Sub-Magistrate who tried the case recommended that all the accused should be dealt with under Section 562, Criminal P.C. But the learned Subdivisional Magistrate has given reasons for not dealing with them under that Section and we do not think that there are sufficient grounds for interfering with the exercise of his discretion. We cannot interfere with the conviction on the facts. Accused 23 was convicted of rioting and let off with a fine of Rs. 20 which cannot be said to be excessive. This petition is dismissed therefore.