JUDGMENT : TUDBALL, J. The appellants Makbul Husain and Ikramullah have been convicted under section 232 of the Penal Code, 1860 of halving made; counterfeit coins, to wit, one anna pieces, and have been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment each including three months' solitary confinement. The Judge and the assessors were unanimous in their verdict. I have been carefully through the evidence and can find no reason to arrive at any other conclusion than that the accused were caught red handed in the commission of the offence. In view of the prevalence of this class of offence the sentence imposed is not excessive. After signing his jugdment the learned Sesions Judge wrote the following order:—“In Makbul Husain's case the sentence will be concurrent with the sentence he is already undergoing.” It appears that Maqbul Husain had been convicted before the trial of the present case of an offence under the Arms Act by some other court. Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply, as he had not been convicted at one trial of two or more distinct offences, and it was not in the Judge's power therefore to order that the second sentence should run concurrently with the sentence passed by another court in another case. If the learned Judge had wished to take the other sentence into consideration, he could have done so by imposing a lesser sentence in the case before him; but as the two offences were very distinct and separate, I see no reason why Makbul Husain should not serve the full sentence imposed on him in the present case. So much of the lower court's order therefore as directs that the sentence in the present case should be concurrent with the sentence in the case under the Arms Act is set aside. In other respects the appeal is dismissed.