The imposition of a substantive sentence of imprisonment for convictions under Sections 325 and 452 of the IPC is mandatory, but the court has the discretion to interfere or not to interfere in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction in a matter of sentence, even if an illegality has been committed.

K.B.N.Singh, J.

1. Petitioner No. 1, Rajeshwar Prasad, has been convicted of the offences under Sections- 147, 323, 325, 426 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, under Sec.147 of the Code, his conviction under Sec.323 of the Code having been set aside by the lower appellate court. The remaining three petitioners have been convicted of the offences under Sections 147, 323, 426 and 452 of the Code and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Sec.147 of the Code. No separation sentence has been imposed under the other counts on any of the four petitioners.

2. Being aggrieved by their convictions, the petitioners have preferred Criminal Revision No. 2425 of 1968. When this revision application was place-ed for final hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, a rule of enhancement was issued, as no sentence was awarded to the petitioner under Sections 325 and 452 of the Code. That rule of enhancement gave rise to Criminal Revision No. 2097 of 1969.

3. Both these cases were placed for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. Challenging the rule of enhancement before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that no illegality was committed in not awarding any sentence under Sections 325 and 452 of the Code, for which the petitioners were convicted, and, at any rate, this amounted only to an irregularity, not calling for. any interference by issue of a rule of enhancement. Learned counsel referred to a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Rai V/s. Ram Belash Tewari, (AIR 1933 Pat 179 (1)), in support of his submission. Their Lordships also noticed another Bench decision of this Court in the case of Alakh Singh V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1965 (2) Cri LJ 832 (1) (Pat), according to which imposition of sentence of imprisonment under Section 452 was compulsory, and pointed out that the provision of Sec.325, in relation to sentence, was in similar terms as that of Sec. 452 of the Code. Their Lordships were of the view that there was conflict between the above two Bench decisions of the Court and, therefore, referred the matter to a larger Bench. Thereafter these cases have been placed before us.

4. The first question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the award of substantive sentence of imprisonment for convictions under Sections 325 and 452 of the Code is mandatory or not. It is not disputed that for the offences under the other counts under which the petitioners have been convicted it is not obligatory to the court to impose substantive sentence of imprisonment.

5. Sec.325 of the Code provides that except in the case provided for by Sec.335, whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt, "shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." Sec.335, which is an exception to this provision, reads thus :-

-

"Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both."

Sec.335 provides that if grievous hurt is caused on grave and sudden provocation, the punishment can be imprisonment or fine or both. Reading these two provisions, it is apparent that the sentence provided for an offence under Sec.325 of the Code is a sentence of imprisonment and it is optional for the court to impose a fine or not, over and above the sentence of imprisonment. Thus, there cannot be any manner of doubt that in cases not falling under