( 1 ) THESE are eight appeals filed by the State against the orders of acquittal which arise out of facts more or less similar and may be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case against the respondents was that on the 1st May 1957 they shouted in loud tones in the presence of Sri K. N. Ray, a Magistrate of the 1st Class at Gorakhpur when he was sitting in his court-room. The learned Magistrate took summary proceedings against the respondents under Section 480 Cr. P. C. (hereinafter called the Code) and recorded their statements. He thought that their statements amounted to a plea of guilty, and on that view he sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 30/- each for contempt of his court. In default of payment of fine each of the respondents was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 10 days.

( 3 ) THE respondents went in appeal to the Sessions Judge against their convictions and sentences. District Government Counsel raised a preliminary objection before him against the maintainability of the appeals. It was urged that, in view of the provisions of Section 486 (2) read with Section 413 of the Code, no appeal lay inasmuch as the sentence of fine was below Rs. 50/ -. The learned Sessions Judge overruled this objection. He also held that the record of the case did not disclose the nature and the stage of the judicial proceedings which the learned Magistrate was conducting when he was interrupted by the respondents, and that he had failed to observe the mandatory provision of Section 481 (2) of the Code. Accordingly he allowed the appeals and acquitted the respondents.

( 4 ) THE State has preferred these appeals against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents. It was argued on its behalf that there was no right of appeal to the court of Session against a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs. 50/-, if passed by a Magistrate of the first class, in view of the provisions of Section 413 of the Code. It was also contended that the learned Sessions Judge had wrongly held that the record of the case did not disclose the nature and stage of the judicial proceedings before the Magistrate.

( 5 ) THE principal question that falls to be determined in these appeals is whether an appeal lay to the Sessions Judge against the order of the learned Magistrate. The argument for the State was developed thus. Sub-section (2) of Section 486 provides that the provisions of Chapter XXXI of the Code shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to appeals under Sub-section (1) of that section. Chapter XXXI which comprises Sections 404 and 413 makes provision for appeals, revisions and references. Section 404 lays down that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of the Criminal Court except as provided for by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 413, so far as it is material for the purposes of this case, declares that there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in a case in which a Magistrate of the first class passes a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs. 50/- only. Thus Section 413 controls the ambit of Sub-section (1) of section 486 in view of the provisions of its Sub-section (2), and it will interdict an appeal from the order of a Magistrate of the first class where he has imposed a sentence of fine not exceeding rs. 50/- only in a conviction under Section 480.

( 6 ) IT was contended by learned counsel that the effect of the expression "so far as they are applicable" occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 486 is as it were to incorporate Section 413 as a proviso to Sub-section (1) of that section. Consequently, although the enacting part of sub-section (1) confers an unrestricted right of appeal even against a sentence of fine of less than rs. 50/-, that right is taken away when such sentence is passed by a Magistrate of the 1st Class. That, according to his argument is unmistakably the result of the expression "so far as they are applicable" occurring in Sub-sec