SAW MYOW WIN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 30th January, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, A&N Islands, Port Blair in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2011.

(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed thereunder the appellant has preferred this appeal under the provision of Sec. 374/375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the ground that on 30th January, 2012 when the case was fixed for framing of the charges the Trial Court decided to read out the charges through a Burmese interpreter and owing to non -knowing of the Burmese language, neither the Court nor the Counsel engaged by the State to defend the accused could properly understand the stand taken by the accused persons and that the order of conviction has been passed on a total non consideration of the vital fact that the accused appellant is a poor fisherman and came to the territorial limits of India by mistake and as such, the order of conviction and the fine imposed on him is excess and as such the same is liable to be modified for the reasons that there is no sufficient evidence or material brought by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case to show that the accused appellant committed the offences as alleged and without any basis only on the basis of the pleading of guilty that too on the basis of the sole interpretation of the interpreter, and that the accused appellant is in judicial custody since his arrest i.e. on 24.11.2010 and is in jail for nearly 5 1/2 years. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the State has already confiscated the vessel of the appellant worth lakhs of rupees and hence the fine imposed ought not to have been imposed. It is further pointed out that the accused appellant entered into the territory of India by mistake and not with mala fide motive. Accordingly, the appellant has prayed for modification of the order of conviction.

(3.) This memo of appeal goes to show that the appellant had challenged the entire order of conviction.