THANGJAM IRABOT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioner along with six others was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 188 and 143 I.P.C. on a complaint filed by the District Magistrate and they were convicted under both the sections on the basis of their admission of the offences and the Magistrate punished them to the maximum sentences under each, of the sections, namely, one month's S. I. under Section 188 and Six months' R. I. under S. 143 I.P.C. The Magistrate did not give any reason why he awarded the maximum sentences under both the sections nor did he state whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively, which meant that the sentences would run consecutively.

(2.) ALTER the conviction and sentence, the petitioner was transferred to Nowgong Jail in Assam while the remaining accused were retained in Jail in Manipur itself. Those retained in Manipur filed an appeal to the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1960 and the learned Sessions Judge set aside their conviction and sentence and acquitted them. Now the petitioner has filed this revision against his conviction and sentence and also prayed that the proceedings before the First Class Magistrate may be quashed under Section 561 -A Cri. P.C.

(3.) IT was pointed out for the petitioner that he did not admit the offences with which he was charged and further that the so -called admission was not recorded as required under Section 243 Cr. P.C. and that even the recording did not show that he had committed the offences and hence his conviction was wrong.