1. The only question raised in this case is, whether an appeal lies to the Sessions Court when a Magistrate of the First Class has convicted an accused person of more offenses than one and has sentenced him for each offence to imprisonment for one month directing, at the same time, that the sentences should run concurrently. This question has been before this Court before. In the case of Bepin Behary Dey v. Emperor 11 Ind. Cas. 255 : 15 C. W. N. 734 : 15 C. L. J. 82, 12 Cr. L. J. 391. Mr. Justice Holmwood and Mr. Justice Sharfuddin held that the sentences must be taken in the aggregate or added together and that an appeal lay. A similar decision was arrived at by Mr. Justice Holmwood and Mr. Justice Imam in the case of Abdul Khalek v. Emperor 17 Ind. Cas. 813 : 17 C. W. N. 72 : 13 Cr. L. J. 877. In a later ease, however, Suknandan Singh v. Emperor 17 Ind. Cas. 531 : 17 C. L. J. 392 : 13 Cr, L. J. 757. Mr. Justice Carnduff and Mr. Justice Imam same to a different conclusion and the construction which they placed on the words of Clause 17 Ind. Cas. 531 : 17 C. L. J. 392 : 13 Cr, L. J. 757, of Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on which the point turns, was subsequently adopted by Mr. Justice Coxe and Mr. Justice Nalini Ranjah Chatterjea in the case of Aziz Sheikh v. Emperor 19 Ind. Cas. 510 : 40 C. 631 : 14 Cr. L. J. 254 : 17 C. W. N. 825. Those learned Judges expressly stated that they did not think that the matter need be referred to a Full Bench because it appeared that Mr. Justice Imam, who was a party to the decision in Abdul Khalek's case 17 Ind. Cas. 813 : 17 C. W. N. 72 : 13 Cr. L. J. 877, was also a party to the decision in Suknandan Singh's case 17 Ind. Cas. 531 : 17 C. L. J. 392 : 13 Cr, L. J. 757.
2. We may add a reference to the cases of Tulsi Ram v. Emperor 18 Ind. Cas. 679 : 35 A., 154 : 11 A. L. J. 111, 14 Cr. L. J. 119, and Gurusahay Ram v. Emperor 43 Ind. Cas. 250 : 3 P. L. J. 138 : 3 P. L. W. 249 : 19 Cr. L. J. 90, in both of which the decision in Abdul Khalsk's case (2) was dissented from.
3. Our view accords with the present current of authority.
4. The result is that this rule muat be discharged. The petitioners who have been admitted to bill must surrender and serve out the remaining portions of their sentences.