ORDER

Seth, J. - Applicant Khyali was tried by a jury in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Kanpur of an offence u/s 375, Penal Code. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to receive a punishment of 15 stripes under the Whipping Act. Khyali appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge of Kanpur and it was argued before the Court of appeal that the charge to the jury was vitiated on account of misdirections and omissions and dhat, therefore, the verdict of the jury should be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept this contention and dismissed the appeal, hence this application in revision,

2. Mr. Sri Narain Sahai, the learned Counsel for the applicant, has taken the same points before me. In particular, he has urged with considerable force that the charge is bad inasmuch as the Judge did not point out to the jury that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. He has further urged that the charge is not a fair charge inasmuch as the learned Judge had expressed his opinion on evidence in a