JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— This is a reference under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the District Magistrate of Allahabad, asking this Court to enhance the sentence passed on the accused by the learned Sessions Judge of that district. Musammat Jamna Bai, the accused, was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class, of an offence punishable under section 241, Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. She appealed to the Court of Sessions Judge, but he reduced the sentence to one of three months rigorous imprisonment. We are of opinion that we should not entertain this reference as such, as we think-that the District Magistrate ought not to have made a reference under section 438 in regard to an order made by the Sessions Judge on appeal from the decision of a Subordinate Magistrate. This is not a case in which the record was examined by the District Magistrate under section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we do not think that the Legislature by using the words “or otherwise” in section 438 intended to confer upon a Magistrate the power to question the propriety of an order of a Sessions Court and make a reference to this Court upon that ground. We agree with the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court who decided the case of Queen-Empress v. Jhandi : [1895] I.L.R., 23 Cal, 249. “It would be contrary to every principle to allow a District Magistrate to report against an order of the Sessions Court to which he is subordinate. “The same view has been taken by this Court in Queen-Emprees v. Sher Singh : 1887] I.L.R., 9 All., 362 and again in Queen-Emprees v. Zor Singh, [1888] I.L.R., 10 All., 146. 2. The course to be followed in such a case is pointed out in the case of Queen-Empress v. Sher Singh : 1887] I.L.R., 9 All., 362. 3. “The same view has been taken by this Court in Queen-Emprees v. Sher Singh : 1887] I.L.R., 9 All., 362 and again in Queen-Emprees v. Zor Singh, [1888] I.L.R., 10 All., 146. 2. The course to be followed in such a case is pointed out in the case of Queen-Empress v. Sher Singh : 1887] I.L.R., 9 All., 362. 3. As, however the Government Advocate has appeared in the case, we have examined the record, and we consider that although the offence is, a very grave one, and although we do not agree with the reason for which the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence, yet, having regard to the fact that no evidence was given to connect the accused with a gang or coiners of persons issuing false coins or that the coins which she is shown to have tried to pass off on previous occasions were different coins from the one for which she has been convicted we do not think the case is one in which we should interfere, We accordingly direct the record to be returned.