Order. The point raised in this reference is whether sentences of fine could be made to run concurrently. The Sub-Magistrate of Kuthuparamba convicted one Raman of offences falling under sec- tion 55(a) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act, in that he was found in possession of 250 M. Litres of illicit arrack kept in one bottle and 6 litres of wash kept in an earthen pot in his house at Vadamamkurussi. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. He was thereupon convicted under the above sections and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250 under section 55(a) and another fine of Rs. 250 under section 55 (g) of the Act. In default of payment of fine the accused has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each under the above two counts. The learned Magistrate has also given the further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. By this latter direction it appear that the sentences of fine is directed to run concurrently. This is not warranted by the provisions of the Code and hence the reference has been made by the District Magistrate. 2. The matter is covered by section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 64 of the Penal Code. The two sections have to be read together. The provision for the passing of concurrent sentences can refer only to substantive sentences and not to sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Under section 64, Indian Penal Code, it shall be competent for the Court to direct in default of payment of fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain period which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence. “Where a Court imposes two sentences of imprisonment on an accused person and orders him to pay fine on each of the two counts with imprisonment in default of payment of fine, it may order the substantive terms of imprisonment to run concurrently, but the terms of imprisonment inflicted in default of payment of fine must run consecutively.” Emperor v. Sesharao1, Emperor v. Ahmed2. (Law of crime by Ratanlal, 21st Edn. P. 105). 3. The direction of the learned Sub-Magistrate that the sentence of fine shall run concurrently is erroneous and has, therefore, to be vacated. (Law of crime by Ratanlal, 21st Edn. P. 105). 3. The direction of the learned Sub-Magistrate that the sentence of fine shall run concurrently is erroneous and has, therefore, to be vacated. The learned Sub-Magistrate has entered conviction under section 255 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which also is wrong. The finding of the learned Magistrate runs: “In the result I convict him under section 255 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, and sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 250.................” Section 255(2) says that “if the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea, and may in his discretion convict him thereon.” ‘Thereon’ means on the plea of guilty and not under the said section, viz., Section 255 of the Code. Conviction can be had only under the Penal Code or if the charge is under any special law, the particular section of that law which makes the act a punishable offence. The Magistrate is not bound to straightaway enter the conviction on the plea of guilty made by the accused. The plea of guilty is only an admission on the part of the accused that the act alleged against him has been committed by him. But the question whether the act complained of does or does not constitute an offence according to law is obviously one for the Court to decide and the conviction is entered only when the Court comes to the conclusion that the act committed by the accused amounts to an offence made punishable by the particular act. So the conviction in the present case can be had only under the relevant sections of the Abkari Act. 4. In the result, the reference is accepted and the direction made in the learned Sub-Magistrate’s judgment that the sentence of fine shall run concurrently is vacated. The concluding portion of the judgment, wherein the conviction is entered under section 255(2), Criminal Procedure Code, will also stand deleted from the judgment. The learned District Magistrate’s recommendation for reduction of the sentence is accepted and the accused will stand convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 125 under each of the counts, in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six weeks under each count. M.C.M. ----- Orders accordingly.