Order.- This is a revision petition filed by the State of Kerala. The respondent in this petition is the accused in C.C. No. 59 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Kattakada. He was charged by the Excise Inspector, Kazhakkuttam Range, with offence punishable under section 8(1)(a) and (g) of the Prohibition Act. The Sub-Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He filed an appeal before the District Magistrate (Judicial), Trivandrum, in Appeal No. 105 of 1965. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The respondent was again convicted under section 8(1)(a) of the above Act in C.C. No. 756 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Trivandrum, and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. He filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence in C.A.No. 199 of 1965 before the District Magistrate (Judicial), Trivandrum. By his judgment the District Magistrate confirmed the conviction and sentence, but directed that the sentence of imprisonment of three months imposed on the accused will run concurrently with the sentence passed in C.C.No. 59 of 1965 by the Sub-Magistrate, Kattakada, and was confirmed in C.A.No. 105 of 1965. The State objects to this direction and contends that it is illegal. The only point for consideration is whether the Magistrate was right in direcing that the sentence of imprisonment awarded as a substantive punishment will run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine. The relevant provision relating to this matter is section 64 of the Penal Code. The only point for consideration is whether the Magistrate was right in direcing that the sentence of imprisonment awarded as a substantive punishment will run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine. The relevant provision relating to this matter is section 64 of the Penal Code. It runs as follows: “In every case of offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment, and in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, 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.” It is clear from the section that the District Magistrate was not justified in directing that the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused in C.C.No. 756 of 1965 and confirmed in C.A.No. 199 of 1965 should run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine imposed in C.C. No. 59 of 1965 and confirmed in C.A. No. 105 of 1965. In State v. Krishna Pillai1, it was held that such a direction would be illegal. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bati2 it was held: “It is not competent for the Court to direct that sentences of imprisonment imposed for default in payment of fines should run concurrently. Such order, if passed, is illegal; such direction can only be given in respect of substantive sentences of imprisonment or transportation and not to imprisonments in default of fines.” The result is that the direction of the Magistrate has to be quashed and I do so. The respondent has to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded in the latter case i.e., C.C.No. 756 of 1965 consecutively after undergoing the sentence of imprisonment directed to be suffered in default of payment of the fine imposed upon him in C.C.No. 59 of 1965. The order of the District Magistrate is modified to this extent and the revision allowed accordingly. M.C.M. ----- Order modified.