1. This is a rule issued on the District Magistrate of Tipperah to show cause why the conviction of the Petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that he could not be tried for two offences for having been found in possession of stolen property belonging to two different persons at different times.
2. We feel ourselves bound by the rulings of this Court in the case of Nanda Kumar Sirkur v. The Emperor 11 C.W.N. 1128, which was passed after the Privy Council ruling in Subramania Iyer v. The King-Emperor 5 C.W.N. 866; 25 M. 61. The ruling which the learned Sessions Judge quotes per contra from Mann Miya v. The Empress 9 C. 371, has to all intents and purposes been set aside by the judgment of the Privy Council. That being so, the rule will have to be made absolute and as the trial was illegal and without jurisdiction a fresh trial upon each set of charges will have to be held. Should the Petitioner be convicted in either or both of the trials, the sentence of 9 months' rigorous imprisonment which he has already served must be taken into consideration in passing sentence.
3. With regard to the rule in the case of Pandav (Rev. 1138 of 1908), which was issued on the same grounds, the same order mutatis mutandis will be passed and the rule will be made absolute for a new trial on each set of cases.
4. In the case of Nekbur Ali (Rev. 1141 of 1908), in which a rule was issued on the same ground and on the same Magistrate, the rule also be made absolute on the same terms.