SASHI NATH SARMA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the instant case had been convicted by the trying Magistrate under Sections 447 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced on each of the counts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100 in default to rigorous imprisonment for another one month. The Magistrate directed that the sentence will run concurrently.

(2.) ON appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 447 but altered the conviction under Section 325 to one under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, as he felt that there was no proof that grievous hurt had been inflicted, and accordingly sentenced the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each on each of the counts,

(3.) THE point for consideration in this case is not whether the petitioners had been prejudiced but whether there was jurisdiction or not. To start with it has to be pointed out that the learned Magistrate was wrong in declaring that the sentence will run concurrently without specifying that what he was referring to was a sentence of imprisonment, because a Court has power - to pass a concurrent sentence under Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which only refers to a sentence of imprisonment, apart from the absurdity of contending that two sentences of fine could run concurrently, resulting in one fine having to be paid.