SINGARAVELU PILLAY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOLLOWING the ruling in Padmanaba Payi Kanmah v. Emperor 33 M. 264 : 7 M.L.T. 79 : 20 M.L.J. 84 : 5 Ind. Cas. 145 : 11 Cr. L.J. 49 we must hold that the action of the Sub Divisional Magistrate in converting the conviction of the 1st appellant (1st petitioner) into one of abetment of theft was illegal. He apparently finds him not guilty of the principal offence and the conviction and sentence of the first appellant must, therefore, be set aside.

(2.) WE find no ground for interference in the case of the other petitioners.