AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 169 wordsRoss, J.—The appellant broke into a house at night and stole a box and was caught in the act. He has been convicted under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to consecutive terms of three years'' rigorous imprisonment under each of these sections. It has been repeatedly held that separate sentences cannot be passed u/s 457 and Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code: see Queen v. Sreemunt Adup 2 W.R.Cr. 63 Queen v. Sahrae 8 W.R.Cr. 31 Jogeen v. Nobo 6 W.R.Cr. 48 In re Mussahur Ddoudh 6 W.R.Cr. 62 and Queen v. Chytun Bowra 5 W.R.Cr. 49 where their Lordships observed: "The point has been frequently ruled. A prisoner convicted of housebreaking followed immediately by theft would be punished u/s 457 of the Indian Penal Code only."
The result is that the sentence of three years'' rigorous imprisonment passed u/s 380 must be set aside. The sentence u/s 457, Penal Code, will stand.
Kulwant Sahay, J.
I agree.