HAFIZUDDIN KHAN Vs. MAHAMMED ELIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are unable to accept this reference. WE cannot agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the fact that there has been a conviction in one rioting case on a plea of guilty, is legally any bar to a conviction in a cross-case of rioting in connection with the same occurrence. The conviction on a plea of guilty did not amount to a finding by the Court that the accused who so pleaded, were not in exclusive possession of the land in dispute, nor was there any reason why the Magistrate who tried the subsequent case, should not convict the accused in the second case if he was satisfied on the evidence that they did commit the offence of rioting. The plea of guilty in the previous case was really no more than an admission and not a conclusive proof that that party was without possession. It was open to them to explain the circumstances under which they made that plea and if the Magistrate was satisfied with that explanation he was justified in ignoring that admission.

(2.) LET the papers be sent back. The accused who have been convicted, will be sent back to jail for the unexpired portion of their sentences.