Criminal Procedure; because neither the order dated June 14, 1956, nor the order dated August 17, 1956, have been printed in the paperbook and the exact terms of the two orders have not been made available to us. The High Court heard together the appeal and the rule for enhancement. By a. judgment pronounced on December 21, 1956, it affirmed the finding of the learned Magistrate, upheld the conviction, dismissed the appeal, and enhanced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment. On or a.bout January 10, 1957, an application was moved on behalf of the appellant for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court in which it was alleged (1) that on the finding of the learned Magistrate affirmed by the High Court, the appellant could not only be found guilty of the offence under s. 384 read with s. 511, Indian Penal Code, for which the maximum punishment ,was 18 months only ; (2) that the High Court could not issue a notice for enhancement of the sentence when an appeal from the conviction and sentence was pending before the Sessions Judge; (:!)that the order transferring the appeal to the High Court was not validly ma.de and, in any case, it was improperly 'Ila.de without issuing a notice to the appellant; and (4) that the procedure adopted had deprived the appellant of his right of getting first a decision from the court of appeal and then another from the High Court in the exercise of its revisiona.l jurisdicti6n. By an order dated January 14, 1957, Falshaw, J., of the Punjab High Court gave the necessary certificate. He said in his order that though the grounds mentioned above were not urged before him at tlie time when the appeal and the rule for enhancement of sentence were heard by him, it appeared to him that the grounds could be legitimately raised and the case was, therefore, a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The present appeal has come before us on that certificate.
