1. In this case the accused was charged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Thana and a jury. The jury found the accused guilty. The Judge accepted the verdict and proceeded to pass a sentence in respect of that charge, and sentenced the accused to three years' rigorous imprisonment on the 23rd August. There was. however, a charge against the accused under Section 75 read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, which, for reasons not material for our present purposes, was not proceeded with before passing the sentence on the charge under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. The trial practically ended when the sentence was passed in respect of the offence under Section 379. The learned Judge, however, proceeded thereafter to try the accused, and to record evidence, with respect to the charge of previous convictions. The jury found the accused guilty on that charge on the 31st of August and the learned Judge sentenced the accused to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal is preferred.
2. The point that arises in appeal is whether the subsequent proceedings with reference to the charge under Section 75 are valid. In my opinion they are not valid, because under Section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the judgment including the sentence was pronounced in the trial on the 23rd of August there was no power to alter or review the same. It seems to me that after the verdict of the jury was accepted and the sentence passed on the 23rd of August on the charge under Section 379, the trial came to an end. Whatever may have been the reasons for sentencing the accused under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, in the first instance, and thereafter proceeding with the charge under Section 75, the subsequent proceedings cannot be treated as valid.
3. I would, therefore, set aside the order made by the Assistant Sessions Judge on the 31st of August and restore that made on the 23rd of August. The result will be that the accused will have to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.
4. I concur.