BRIJ MOHAN LALL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by twenty-four persons who have been convicted by a learned Magistrate, first class, of Azamgarh of offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323/149 I. P. C. Every one of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- under the former section and a further fine of Rs. 20/- under the latter section.

( 2 ) THE applicants filed a revision in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge of Azamgarh. But that revision was summarily dismissed. They have now come up to this Court in revision.

( 3 ) THE charge which the trial Court found proved against the applicants is that they formed an unlawful assembly on the 31st of January 1950 in the evening in village Muzaffarpur, police station Kandharpur in the district of Azamgarh, of which the common object was to give a beating to Ali Ahmad and his companions and that in prosecution of the said common object they committed rioting and caused hurt to Ali Ahmad and five other persons. The trial Court held that the first two applicants, viz. , Tiny and Gul Mohammad, actually caused injuries. It is not proved that the remaining 22 applicants or any one or more of them actually caused any injury. What is proved is that the unlawful assembly of which the remaining 22 applicants were also members did cause injuries to Ali Ahmad and his companions and that these injuries were caused in prosecution of the common object. These findings of fact cannot be challenged in these proceedings.

( 4 ) SO far as the first two applicants, viz. , Tiny and Gul Mohammad, are concerned, there is no doubt about the correctness of their convictions and sentences. A person who actually causes hurt and is also a member of an unlawful assembly can be convicted of" committing riot under section 147, I. P. C. , and of causing hurt under Section 323, I. P. C. It has not been contended before me that their convictions are illegal. The Full Bench case of queen Empress v. Ram sarup, 7 All. 757, is an authority for the proposition that persons who commit individual apts of violence with their own hands can be convicted of rioting as well as of hurt. Therefore, the revision has no force so far as these two applicants are concerned.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants contended that the remaining 22 applicants cannot be awarded sentences both under Section 147 and under Section 323/149. He does not contend that these 22 persons could not be convicted of the aforesaid offences. His contention is that, although they could be convicted of the said offences, separate sentences could not be passed under both Sections. For this contention he places reliance on Section 71 of the Indian Penal code.

( 6 ) BEFORE discussing the provisions of Section 71 it is necessary to make a reference to two other allied provisions contained in Sections 235 and 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 235 permits the joining of charges under Sections 147 and 323/149 when the acts are so connected together as to form the same transaction. Illustration (g) of the said section makes it clear that persons so charged can be convicted in the same trial of the afroesaid offences, Section 235 does not deal with punishment. Therefore, neither the main section nor the aforesaid illustration is an authority for the proposition that separate punishments can also be awarded for the abovementioned two offences. On the contrary, one finds that subsection (4) of Section 235 says that: "nothing contained in this section shall affect the Indian Penal Code, Section 71. " thus, there is an express provision to the effect that the provisions of Section 235 Cr. P. C. , are subject to the provisions of Section 71, I. P. C. This means that, although a person may be tried at one trial of offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323/149 and although he may be convicted of the said offences in the same trial, he cannot be given separate sentences unless the same is warranted by Section 71, I. P. C. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document