The accused was convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mayavaram, of an offence punishable under Ss. 454 and 380 I.P.C and was released under S. 562 Cr. P.C upon his executing a bond. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of East Tanjore affirmed the conviction, but referred the case to this Court as to the sentence, because the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was an illegal one. If S. 562 is to be applied to persons over 21 years of age, it must be only in relation to offences that are punishable with sentences not exceeding seven years, whereas an offence punishable under S. 454, I.P.C is punishable with ten years Rigorous Imprisonment.
I do not think this revision case should be regarded as one for enhancement of the sentence, entitling the accused to agitate findings of fact; but even if it were, I should have no hesitation in agreeing with the findings of the courts below; for the accused was found in possession of stolen property, and he admitted to the village Magistrate that he had stolen that property from the house of the complainant. He must therefore have been guilty of house-breaking as well as of theft in a building.
As S. 454 I.P.C requires that a sentence of imprisonment should be given, I accept the reference, set aside the order under S. 562 Cr. P.C, and sentence the accused to one month's Rigorous Imprisonment.
N.T.RReference accepted.