( 1 ) THIS is a petition on behalf of four applicants praying that under the provisions of Chap. 23, rule 29 of the Rules of Court the applicants be ordered to execute bonds undertaking to lodge a petition before the Supreme Court and the execution of the sentence against them may be stayed.

( 2 ) THE facts which have given rise to this petition briefly are that the applicants were convicted by a Magistrate under Sections 325/34 and 323, I. P. C. Their convictions were maintained on appeal and the appellate court gave a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and rs. 50/- as fine each.

( 3 ) A revision was filed to this Court against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal. At the time of the admission of the revision, notice was issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court to show cause why the sentences passed upon the applicants should, not be enhanced. Both the revision application on behalf of the applicants and that relating to enhancement matter came up before us and we, by our order dated 15-3-56, rejected the application of the applicants and enhanced the sentences passed by the court below from one of till the rising of the court to three months R. I. An application was made to us for leave to grant a certificate to file an appeal to the Supreme Court against our order enhancing the sentences. We, by our order dated 30-3-56, rejected that petition also. Thereupon the present petition has been filed praying for suspension of the sentence pending the proposed application for special leave to appeal against our judgment in the Supreme Court.

( 4 ) IN our opinion there is no power under the provisions of Chap. 23, Rule 29 of the Rules of court to suspend the operation of the sentence pending the proposed application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our judgment. Chapter 23, Rule 29 of the Rules of Court provides as follows:

"on the applicant executing a bond with or without sureties undertaking to lodge an appeal in the Supreme Court within the prescribed time, the Court may (i) order that the execution of the sentence or order be stayed; or (ii) where the applicant is in confinement, admit him to bail on such terms as the Court may think fit pending the disposal of the application or where a certificate is granted, pending the lodging of an appeal in the Supreme Court. "

( 5 ) IN our opinion the scheme of Rule 29 is that on the applicant executing a bond undertaking to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court this Court has power to suspend the execution of the sentences and further if the applicant is in confinement admit him to bail on such terms as the court may think fit pending the disposal ot the application or where a certificate has been granted pending the lodging of an appeal in the Supreme Court.

( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that. the words of Rule 29 are wide enough to give power to this Court to suspend the execution of the sentence pending the proposed application for special leave to the Supreme Court. Even after the leave has been granted by the Supreme Court under the Rules of that Court an appeal has to be lodged and as soon as that undertaking is given by the applicant he is entitled to the stay of the execution under Clause (1) of Rule 29.

( 7 ) IN our opinion there is no force in this argument of the petitioner.

( 8 ) RULE 29 has to be read along with Rule 28 which provides as follows:

"an application for a certificate under Article 333 (1) or 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution in a criminal proceeding shall be made to the Court orally or in writing before or at the time when any judgment, final order or sentence is passed. The Court shall thereupon record an order granting or refusing to grant such certificate. "

( 9 ) THIS Rule has now been amended and under the amended Rule an application can be filed within 30 days from the date of the order. The word "applicant" in Rule 29 necessarily means a person who had made an applicati