JUDGMENT

Boys, J. - This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge refusing to hear the appeal of one Hira Lal against whom an order in a summary trial has been passed u/s 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the refusal being based on Section 414 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which he held barred the right of appeal.

2. Section 408 gives an appeal from the order of a Magistrate of the first class to the Sessions Judge. Section 410 gives an appeal from the Sessions Judge to the High Court. If these two sections are uncontrolled, there can be no question that an appeal lies under them from orders u/s 562 by a Magistrate or by the Sessions Judge respectively.

3. The case for the Crown here is that as there was a summary trial, an appeal is barred by Section 414; the argument being that as there is no sentence at all, it must be held to be a sentence less than the maximum which is referred to in Section 414.

4. To support the exclusion of a right of appeal, it will have, to be argued that "no sentence" is "a sentence of less than a certain maximum." I find it impossible to hold that this is a permissible meaning to give to the language used. It is only necessary to read Section 414 to realize instantly on coming to the words "passes a sentence" that Here there was no "sentence." It has not been suggested here that an order u/s 562 amounts to a sentence. It clearly does not do so, and in this connection reference may be made to the words in Section 380 "pass such sentence or make such order." This, to my mind, is really sufficient to conclude the question. The learned Sessions Judge says:

Section 414 provides that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any case tried summarily, in which a Magistrate empowered to act u/s 260, passes a sentence of fine not exceeding 200 rupees only.

5. This is a perfectly correct statement of what Section 414 provides, namely, that there shall be no appeal in certain cases. It does not say anything at all about whether there shall or shall not be an appeal in other cases, but' the learned Judge continues:

By this section an appeal is allowed only in cases in which the Magistrate empowered to act u/s 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes a fine exceeding 200 rupees or passes a sentence of imprisonment.

6. It is in this latter paraphrase of the section that he has misdirected Himself. The section says in what cases there shall be no appeal. It does not say in what cases there shall fie an appeal, and it is by paraphrasing it in this way that he suggests the inference that there shall be no appeal in other cases and in this way has led himself to the conclusion that the section says, what it does not say, that there shall be no appeal where there is no sentence at all.

7. There are one or two further points that I may mention. It is asked why should he legislature have taken away any right of appeal when there is a definite sentence--certainly a fine and possibly a sentence of imprisonment--and yet have allowed a right of appeal when no sentence was passed. An explanation readily suggests itself. It is quite conceivable that many persons would regard an order of release u/s 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, coupled with having to enter into a bond to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour of any period up to three years, as something very much more serious than a substantive sentence of fine of, perhaps, Rs. 10 appeal or even Rs. 200. In this connection one may notice that an appeal always has been given to the District Magistrate against an order of a Magistrate demanding security for good behaviour, and now the right to appeal against an or4er for security for good behaviour and also an order for security for feeing the peace has been still further extended. There is, therefore, nothing whatever unnatural or unreasonable in giving a right of appeal to a person who u/s 562 has to file a bond both for