1. There is no reason for questioning the correctness of the conviction of the appellant, and the sentence is not excessive. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
2. We think it necessary, however, to notice a misconception of the object of Section 75, Penal Code, into which the Sessions Judge has fallen. He seems to think that on a second conviction of any of the offences specified in that section he is bound to pass sentence thereunder, and he accordingly observes that, although for the offence committed (Section 457), the prisoner would be liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, he would under Section 75 of the Penal Code, by reason of a previous conviction, be liable to imprisonment for only ten years. He then states that 'it is for the prisoner's advantage, provided he is prepared to take his chance of transportation to admit a previous conviction.' The object of Section 75 is to provide for an additional sentence, not for a less severe sentence on a second conviction. Recourse should not be had to Section 75 if the punishment for the offence committed is itself sufficient, and even then the Code of Procedure requires that the prisoner should be first convicted of that offence.