Judgment Jamuar, J. 1. This is an application against an order passed by the Full Bench of the Gram Panchayat of Chainpur Baburan in the district of Muzaffarpur dated 11-6-1955, in Case^No. 1 of 1955. 2. The two petitioners were tried by the Gram Cutcherry of Baburan on charges of criminal trespass and assault and were convicted, and one of the petitioners was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and the other to pay a fine of Rs. 20/-and in default to undergo imprisonment for two weeks each. From that order of conviction, the convicted men filed an appeal before the Full Bench under the provisions of Sec. 67 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The aforesaid Full Bench considered this appeal and upheld the convictions. The Full Bench, however, considered that the sentence awarded by the Gram Cutcherry was light and, therefore, the sentence was enhanced by sentencing both the convicted men to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days each. The present application before us accordingly raises the question whether the Full Bench had the jurisdiction to enhance the sentence which had been passed by the Gram Cut-cherry. 3. In my opinion, the Full Bench has no such jurisdiction to enhance a sentence which had been imposed by the Gram Cutcherry. The powers of a Full Bench, when an appeal has been filed before it, have been defined in Rule 59 of the Bihar Gram Cuteheny Rules, 1949, the rules having been framed under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Bihar Act VII of 1948). Sub-rule (1) of Rule 59 is as follows: "On the date fixed for hearing, the full bench shall peruse the records of the case and shall hear the parties and do any other thing to meet the ends of justice and may uphold, modify or set aside the order passed by the original Bench,, or pass such order as may be just and convenient in the circumstances of the case". The Full Bench, therefore, may either uphold, or modify, or set aside an order passed by the Gram Cutchery, or may pass such order ts may be just and convenient in the circumstances of the case. The Full Bench, therefore, may either uphold, or modify, or set aside an order passed by the Gram Cutchery, or may pass such order ts may be just and convenient in the circumstances of the case. Enhancement cannot, of course, be included in the terms "uphold" or "set aside", and in my opinion it cannot be included in the terms "modify" either. Various meanings have been given to the word "modify" in the Oxford English Dictionary, and one of the meanings which I think should be adopted for the purposes of the present case is "to make less severe", or "to tone down": this is reverse of enhancement. The word "modify" was also con-sidered in the case of Imperatrix V/s. Rama Prema, ELR 4 Bom 239 (A). In that case the word occurred "in Clause 2 of Sec.18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1872, and the question there also was whether it could include the power to enhance a sentence. Their Lordships pointed out that Clause 2 of Sec.18 of that Code of Criminal Procedure was to the following effect, namely, "the Sessions Judge may either confirm, modify, or annul such sentence of the Assistant Sessions Judge" and they were of the opinion that the word "modify" did not include and could not have Been intended to include the power of enhancing the sentence. The question then arises whether the power to enhance can be included within the phrase "just and convenient". In my opinion, these words must be read ejusdem generis, that is to say, where there are general words, such as "just and convenient", following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified. In this view of the matter, the phrase "just and convenient" must be read along with the specific words previously used, namely, "uphold, modify or set aside", and I have held that the power of enhancement cannot be included in either of these three terms. 4 Having regard, therefore, to the interpretation which I have placed upon Rule 59 quoted above, I am of the opinion that the Full Bench had no power to enhance the sentence imposed by the Gram Cutcherry. The application, therefore, must be allowed and the order passed by the Full Bench dated 11-6-1955 in Case No. 1 of 1955 must be set aside. The application, therefore, must be allowed and the order passed by the Full Bench dated 11-6-1955 in Case No. 1 of 1955 must be set aside. H.K.Choudhuri, J. 5 I agree.