JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J.:— Although it was admitted as an appeal, no appeal lies, the conviction by the Joint Magistrate having been affirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. As the case is before me, however, I deal with it in revision. 2. The accused Gajju was convicted by the Joint Magistrate of an offence punishable under section 457 of the Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and whipping of 30 stripes, because, according to the Joint Magistrate, he has previously been convicted of theft. The only evidence in regard to the previous conviction is a statement by the accused that he had previously been sentenced to nine, months imprisonment for theft. 3. If this was so, the sentence of whipping was illegal, inasmuch as he was not convicted previously either of the same offence or of any offence falling under the same group of offences specified in section 2 of Act No. VI of 1864, and was not therefore punishable with whipping in addition to imprisonment, under section 3 of the Act. It is somewhat surprising that this illegality was not noticed by the learned Sessions Judge. I would also call the attention of the Joint Magistrate to the provisions of rule 39A of the rules of the 14th of August, 1897, which he has overlooked, before passing final orders I direct the Magistrate to report whether the sentence of whipping has been inflicted.