JUDGMENT E.M. Narayana Murthy, the revision-petitioner, was convicted by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 12th August, 1981, under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment of fine, to undergo a simple imprisonment for one month. He was further under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The two sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner questioned the two sentences in appeal before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. The sentences in the case were considered under section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (II of 1974) “a petty case” and the case disposed of “as revision” in the order on 5th October, 1981 and the two sentences were confirmed. The question now in this Court raised is that an appeal is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of sentences dated 12th August, 1981, by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate and the case should have been considered by the appellate authority as an appeal, not as a revision. 2. In the Code of Criminal Procedure (II of 1974 ) under section 374 against every order of the Magistrate of the First Class, unless it is a petty case within the meaning of section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of that Court, an appeal is provided to the Court of Sessions. Against a sentence of three months or of fine not exceeding Rs. 200 or of both, such imprisonment and fine (notwithstanding anything contained in section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) it is recited no appeal is provided. In clause (3) of section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed the Code of Criminal Procedure recites, “to be deemed” a single sentence. A like provision, however, is not made in the Code when sentences are ordered to run concurrently. In the case on hand, there are two sentences under sections 409 and 467of the Indian Penal Code. They are ordered to run concurrently. Therefore clause (3) of section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is inapplicable. The two sentences are not to be understood as one sentence. In the case on hand, there are two sentences under sections 409 and 467of the Indian Penal Code. They are ordered to run concurrently. Therefore clause (3) of section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is inapplicable. The two sentences are not to be understood as one sentence. The question now at issue is: whether such a case is covered by clause (b) of section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to cases under section 413 of the Repealed Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) and in them there is no uniformity in the views expressed by Courts in India. The cases arose mostly in cases of fines. In Akbar Ali v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1931 Cal. 642 and in Khagendra Nath v. Thandaram, A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 454 there is some discussion touching on this point, but in the two cases, the sentences were of fine and the observations made are obiter. The view in the case of Bepin Behary Dey v. Emperor, (1911) 11 I.C. 225 and in Abdul Khalek v. Emperor, (1912) 17 I.C. 813 (1) was not followed in Sukhnanda Singh v. Emperor, (1912) 17 I.C. 531 (2). There is some discussion in Aziz Sheik v. Emperor, (1913) 19 I.C. 510:I.L.R. 40 Cal. 631 and in Tulsi Ram v. Emperor, (1913) 18 I.C. 679: I.L.R. 2 All. 154 but of not much help. The dicta and observations in, the above seven cases, thus, do not render any assistance to resolve the question raised now. The question to be answered thus, on the basis of language in clause (b) of section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. In the case on hand, there is a sentence of imprisonment of three months and a fine and another sentence is of imprisonment of three months. The sentences, thus, are two, though they are ordered to run concurrently. The words in clause (b) of section 376 , are “a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or of both such imprisonment and fine”. 5. It is possible to take more than one view of the question raised. The words in clause (b) of section 376 , are “a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or of both such imprisonment and fine”. 5. It is possible to take more than one view of the question raised. The expression “a sentence” in the above clause may take in under the General Clauses Act, sentences under the Code (for singular includes plural), unless it is otherwise in the context of the subject. It is in that area having regard to the language in clause (b) there is a doubt. 6. The Code in all cases of sentences provided an appeal under section 374 except a sentence in a petty case under section 376. The doubt is felt in the area covered by the provision indicating the exception. I rather read the doubt to hold, where two sentences are directed to run concurrently such a sentence is not a sentence in a petty case. In that view, the learned appellate Judge ought not to have disposed of the case as a revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure (II of 1974) when the petitioner lodged the case as an appeal. It is common knowledge approaches in appeals and revision under the Code, vary enormously and it is not necessary here to dilate that distinction in this case. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge dated 5th October, 1981, in the case, is set aside. The case lodged by E. M. Narayanamurthy is remitted to the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad who is directed to consider the case as an appeal under section 374 of the Code against the order of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad in C.C. No. 635 of 1979, dated 12th August, 1981, and pass orders in accordance with law. 8. The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing a bond in a sum of Rs, 1,000 with two sureties to the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad pending the case of appeal indicated above. R.S. ----- Order set aside; case remanded.