( 1 ) THIS is a revision filed by the State.

( 2 ) THE non-applicant Govindsingh has been convicted under Section 304 (Part I)and also under Sections 323 I. P. C. Sajjansingh has been convicted only under sections 324 I. P. C. The sentence awarded to Govindsingh, non-applicant No. 1, under Sections 304 (1) was for three and half years R. I. , but none of the non-applicants have been sentenced in spite of their convictions under Sections 323 and 324 I. P, C. on the ground that they were in Jail for about ten months and that was considered to be sufficient punishment for the offences committed by them.

( 3 ) THE only question that has to be determined in this revision petition is whether the Court hag acted illegally in not awarding any sentence after conviction and accepting their detention as under trial prisoners for about ten months as sufficient punishment.

( 4 ) FIRST therefore we have to consider is whether a sentence must follow in every case of conviction. The Judicial Commissioner's Court of Nagpur had occasion to consider this. In Sitaram v. Emperor, AIR 1928 Nag 188, Halifax, A. J. C. is of the view that there is no law that says a penalty must always follow