Judgment : This revision is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil in C.A. No.23 of 1992 reversing the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil in S.T.C. No.4820 of 1989 who convicted the respondents 2 to 7 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for each of the offences under Secs. 147, 296 and 297 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned Magistrate considering the evidence of six witnesses examined on the prosecution side has found the respondents 2 to 7 guilty of the offences mentioned above and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences. The trial was conducted in the summary manner. On appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, he found that, when the trial court, had conducted the proceedings in the summary manner, the punishment cannot exceed three months as contemplated under Sec. 262(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, but as the sentence of one year rigorous Imprisonment was imposed for each of the offences, he held that the conviction and sentence is illegal and therefore, set aside the order of the court below. As against this order, the revision is filed by the complainant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not gone into the merits of the prosecution case but simply for the reason that the sentence is exceeding the powers conferred under Sec. 262(2) of Crl.P.C. the conviction and sentence is illegal, that even if the sentence is exceeding the power of the Magistrate, his finding cannot be supported, because the learned Sessions Judge has not given any finding against the conclusions of the learned Magistrate with regard to the commission of the offence and therefore, the order of acquittal has to be set aside. On a perusal of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, I find that relying upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Nanalal Harishankar v. State, A.I.R. 1969 Guj. 62, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. It is true that when the case was tried summarily, the maximum punishment that could be imposed by the Magistrate is only three months and in this case the learned Magistrate exceeding his powers has imposed the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. 62, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. It is true that when the case was tried summarily, the maximum punishment that could be imposed by the Magistrate is only three months and in this case the learned Magistrate exceeding his powers has imposed the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. But for this illegality the conviction itself cannot be set aside because the illegality is only the sentence exceeding three months. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge instead of setting aside the conviction could have reduced the sentence to three months or still lesser for the offences alleged provided he found that the offence was established against the accused. But without giving any finding with regard to the conclusions arrived at by the learned Magistrate for the commission of the offence, he has allowed the appeal is entirety. I feel that this order of the learned Sessions Judge is not proper and requires interference. Had he given his finding with regard to the alleged occurrence, the position would have been different. But without giving finding as to the commission of the offence for the illegality of excess punishment, he ought not have set aside the order of conviction. Therefore, the revision has to be allowed for remanding the matter to the lower appellate court to reconsider the appeal. 4. In the result, setting aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil, the matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil to consider the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil with regard to the commission of offence and impose the sentence in case if the accused is found guilty, within the powers provided under Sec. 262(2) of Crl.P.C.