JUDGMENT Stevens and Harington, JJ. - In this case a Rule was granted calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence passed upon the Petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the facts found do not amount to an offence. 2. The Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 342 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced by the Magistrate who tried him, to suffer simple imprisonment for one week and to pay a fine of rupees fifty, or one month's simple imprisonment in default. On appeal the Judge of the lower Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, but altered the sentence of fine of 120 rupees. 3. A perusal of the judgment of the lower Court shows that it was established that a man named Earn Sahay Dhanee was suffering from dysentery in the Jail; that the Civil Surgeon ordered an enema to be given to him; that the accused administered some enemas to him; that on his refusal to submit to having another enema administered to him he was ordered by the accused to be put into a cell; and that in pursuance of that order Ram Sahay Dhanee was put into a cell and locked up. These findings establish that there was a confinement. We do not agree with the argument which has been addressed to us that there cannot be an imprisonment within an imprisonment. It seems to us clear that, if a prisoner is confined in a particular part of a prison without legal authority, that confinement is a wrongful one, notwithstanding that his confinement in the prison at large may be legal. There is nothing in the judgment of the lower Court from which we can infer that there was any legal warrant for the confinement of Ram Sahay Dhanee in the cell in which the accused ordered him to be confined; and the learned vakil who has appeared for the Appellant has not been able to draw our attention to any provisions of law under which such confinement can be justified. But he contends that the act of confining Ram Sahay Dhanee in the cell in question was done by a person, who, under a mistake of facts, believed himself justified in so confining him and therefore u/s 79 the act is not an offence. But he contends that the act of confining Ram Sahay Dhanee in the cell in question was done by a person, who, under a mistake of facts, believed himself justified in so confining him and therefore u/s 79 the act is not an offence. There is nothing in the facts disclosed in the judgment to warrant us in saying that there was any mistake of fact which led the Appellant to suppose himself justified in law in confining this man; and the Magistrate points out that the Appellant made certain inconsistent statements as to what had taken place, which, in our opinion, render it impossible to suppose that the Appellant in good faith believed himself justified in law in acting as he did. 4. On these grounds, we think that this conviction must be sustained.