Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by the State against the Sessions Judge's order acquitting the accused in sessions case No.3 of 1953 on the file of the Anjikaimal Sessions Court. The accused stood charged with having committed the offence punishable under S. 413 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution the accused has been habitually receiving stolen articles with the knowledge that they were stolen articles, or at least under circumstances in which he had every reason to believe that they were stolen articles. From the wording of S. 413 it is clear that for establishing the offence under the section, it is essential that there must be evidence in proof of the four elements constituting the offence, viz., that (1) the articles stated to have been received by the accused were stolen property, (2) that he received such articles, (3) that he has been receiving them frequently or habitually and (4) that he was receiving them knowing or having reason to believe them to be stolen articles. On the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the first three points against the accused. But on the fourth point the conclusion reached by him was that the explanation given by the accused as to how he happened to come into possession of these articles, was acceptable and that it could not be said that the accused had received these articles knowing or having reason to believe them to be stolen property. The appeal challenges the correctness and the sustainability of the learned Sessions Judge's finding on this point. 2. The accused is a merchant dealing in second-hand hardware goods and he has his shop near the Padma Talkies at Ernakulam. Evidence has been adduced in this case to show that between the years 1950 and 1952 this accused has received stolen articles involved in 14 theft cases. Exts. J. VII, VI, AJ, AC, AD, AA, AB, AE, W, AP, Z, AH and C are copies of the judgments in these 14 cases. Evidence has been adduced in this case to show that between the years 1950 and 1952 this accused has received stolen articles involved in 14 theft cases. Exts. J. VII, VI, AJ, AC, AD, AA, AB, AE, W, AP, Z, AH and C are copies of the judgments in these 14 cases. These cases may be conveniently classified under three groups, viz., (1) cases in which this accused also stood charged for the offence of having dishonestly received the property in question, knowing or having reason to believe them to be stolen property, punishable under S. 411 of the Penal Code, but was ultimately acquitted of the charge under that section; (2) cases in which this accused was convicted of the offence under S. 411, and (3) cases in which this accused gave evidence as a witness on the side of the prosecution in proof of the fact that the articles recovered in those cases happened to be in his possession as having been purchased by him from the persons who stood charged with the offence of having committed theft of the same. 3. The cases evidenced by Exts. AA, AB, AC, AD, VI and VII fall under the first group. In all these cases it was definitely found that the articles recovered from the possession of this accused were stolen property which he had purchased from his co-accused who were convicted of the offence of theft in respect of such articles. But on the question of this accused's knowledge as to whether they were stolen articles or not, the court appears to have given him the benefit of doubt and to have acquitted him in respect of the charge under S. 411 that had been levelled against him. Ext. J, AJ and AE are the judgments in the cases coming under the second group. In these three cases it was found that all the ingredients of the offence under S. 411 had been clearly made out against this accused and accordingly he was convicted in all these three cases on 30th December 1950, 7th January 1951 and 30th October 1951 respectively. The decisions in the cases falling under these two groups cannot be made the basis of the present charge under S. 413. In fact the prosecution has no case that the charge under S. 413 can be sustained on the basis of these decisions. The decisions in the cases falling under these two groups cannot be made the basis of the present charge under S. 413. In fact the prosecution has no case that the charge under S. 413 can be sustained on the basis of these decisions. The judgments in these cases have been produced merely for the purpose of proving that in all these nine cases, the respondent accused had to face a trial for the offence under S. 411, that the articles recovered in all these cases from his custody were as a matter of fact proved to have been articles stolen by the other accused in those cases and who were convicted of the offence of theft, and that in three of these cases this accused was also convicted of the offence under S. 411. 4. The prosecution relies on these facts as affording a significant background to the conduct of this accused in the third group of cases evidenced by Exts. W, AP, Z, AH and C. In these five cases there was no charge against the present accused. He was only a prosecution witness in each of these cases, and hence the part played by him in respect of the stolen articles involved in these cases could very well be made the basis of a fresh charge against him under S. 413. That is exactly what has been done in the present case where the prosecution seeks to bring home the offence under S. 413 against this accused on the basis of his conduct in having received such articles with the knowledge that they were stolen articles. Just as the correctness or otherwise of the order acquittal of this accused in the first group of cases cannot be allowed to be collaterally attacked and canvassed in this case, it is equally clear that the correctness or otherwise of the conviction of this accused in the second group of cases cannot also be collaterally attacked and canvassed in this case. Such acquittals and convictions have become final and conclusive. It is seen that the learned Sessions Judge has taken some pains in examining the correctness of the decision in Ext. AE case. In fact he has recorded an opinion in paragraph 24 of the judgment that the conviction in that case was not properly made. Such acquittals and convictions have become final and conclusive. It is seen that the learned Sessions Judge has taken some pains in examining the correctness of the decision in Ext. AE case. In fact he has recorded an opinion in paragraph 24 of the judgment that the conviction in that case was not properly made. It is clear that he was not sitting in appeal over the decision in Ext. AE case. He has clearly erred in examining the correctness of that decision and pronouncing upon it. The view taken by him that the decisions in the cases falling under the first two groups are of no evidentiary value so far as the present case is concerned, is also erroneous and unsustainable. As already stated, the facts which have become final by virtue of those decisions are relevant evidence in appreciating the conduct of the accused in relation to the articles involved in the third group of cases, which conduct really forms the basis of the present charge. Such facts are that this accused had in fact been convicted of the offence under S. 411 in Exts. J, AJ and AE cases and that even in the other six cases falling under the first group the articles recovered from his custody were definitely found to have been stolen by the other accused in those cases and sold to this accused. 5. The evidence relating to each of the cases falling under the third group may now be considered. The charge against this accused for having received the stolen articles involved in these five cases, has been laid against him for the first time in this cases, even though the respective thieves themselves had been previously tried and convicted of the offence of theft as per the decisions in the judgments Exts. W, AP, Z, AH and C. In Ext. W case the investigation was started on the basis of the report Ext. P to the police by the officer in charge of the Cochin Air Port on 27th August 1951, complaining that barbed wire to the value of about Rs. 50 had been stolen from the aerodrome fencing. As a result of the police investigation, Pw. 27 in the present case was detected to be the thief who committed the theft and accordingly he was arrested and a case was taken up against him. 50 had been stolen from the aerodrome fencing. As a result of the police investigation, Pw. 27 in the present case was detected to be the thief who committed the theft and accordingly he was arrested and a case was taken up against him. On the information given by him the stolen article was recovered from the shop of the accused in the present case, and Ext. U is the search list relating to that recovery. Pw. 27 stood his trial for the offence of theft and ultimately he was convicted of that offence as per the judgment Ext. W. Besides that conviction, there is the direct evidence given by Pw. 27 in this case that the article recovered as per the search list Ext. U was the article stolen by him from the aerodrome fencing and sold to the accused in the present case. The fact of such a purchase and the subsequent recovery was admitted by the accused in this case when he was examined as a prosecution witness in Ext. W case. Ext. O is the deposition given by him in that case and it is proved by Pw. 15. In the statement given by him in answer to the present charge also he has clearly admitted that the article recovered as per the search list Ext. U had been purchased by him from Pw. 27, but has added an explanation that he had paid the proper value of the article and that he was not aware at the time of the purchase that it was a stolen article. The question as to how for this explanation is acceptable as reasonable and convincing, will be considered later. The fact that the stolen article involved in Ext. W case was received by this accused from the thief himself stands clearly proved against this accused and also admitted by him. 6. The theft in Ext. AP case was in respect of some hammers and a nail-puller belonging to Pw. 2. The theft of these articles from his godown was on 1st August 1951 and it was reported by him to the police on the very next day as per the statement Ext. 6. The theft in Ext. AP case was in respect of some hammers and a nail-puller belonging to Pw. 2. The theft of these articles from his godown was on 1st August 1951 and it was reported by him to the police on the very next day as per the statement Ext. D. On investigation it was found that the theft was committed by one Chothy, a Pulaya coolie, who was accordingly arrested on 2nd August 1951 itself, and on the information given by him the stolen articles were recovered from the shop of the accused in the present case as per the search list Ext. E. Such recovery is proved by Pws. 2 and 21. Chothy was put up for trial for the offence of theft and the trial ended in his conviction as is evidenced by the judgment Ext. AP. In the deposition Ext. AS given by the accused in the present case as a prosecution witness in Ext. AP case, he has clearly admitted having purchased from the aforesaid Chothy the hammers and the nail-puller recovered as per Ext. E. In the statement given in answer to the charge in this case also, the accused has clearly admitted that he had received these articles from Chothy. Here again the accused has put forward a plea of good faith and it will be considered later on. 7. Then there is the theft which is the subject-matter of Ext. Z case. The article stolen in that case was telephone cable which had been cut and removed from a spot under the Vendurthi Bridge on 26th December 1951. On the next day the Telephone Supervisor sent the report Ext. IV about the theft to the police. The police on investigation detected that the theft was committed by one Krishnan who has been examined as Pw. 6 in the present case. He was put up for trial in Ext. Z case and was duly convicted, as is evident from the judgment Ext. Z. As Pw. 6 in the present case also he had admitted that the theft of the telephone cables had been committed by him and the materials thus obtained had been sold to the accused in the present case. What was thus sold consisted of some copper wire and a piece of lead obtained by melting the lead portion of the cable. 6 in the present case also he had admitted that the theft of the telephone cables had been committed by him and the materials thus obtained had been sold to the accused in the present case. What was thus sold consisted of some copper wire and a piece of lead obtained by melting the lead portion of the cable. The accused in the present case was examined as a prosecution witness in Ext. Z case Ext. AF is the deposition thus given by him. In that deposition he has clearly admitted having purchased the aforesaid copper wire and lead piece from Pw. 6 and that the copper wire had already been sold by him before the police made a search of his shop. The search list Ext. Y shows that the lead piece and the price obtained by the sale of the copper wire could alone be recovered from the shop of this accused. The recovery as per Ext. Y is proved by Pw. 24. Here again the accused in his statement in this case admits having received the copper wire and lead piece from Pw. 6 and which formed the subject matter of the theft for which Pw. 6 was tried and convicted in Ext. Z case. 8. The other two instances where the accused in the present case is shown to have received stolen articles, are proved by the evidence relating to Ext. AH and Ext. C cases. On the night of 18th January 1952 certain house-hold untensils belonging to Pw. 1, who was at that time Professor in the Maharaja's College at Ernakulam, were stolen from his house. He preferred the complaint Ext. A about that theft and gave the statement Ext. B on the next day. On investigation the police traced out the thief to be one Gopalakrishnan Nair who has been examined as Pw. 14 in this case. On the information given by him that the stolen articles had been sold to the accused in the present case, a search was made in his shop and the articles in question were recovered. Ext. T is the search list prepared in that connection. Among the articles thus recovered, those which belonged to Pw.1 and which were stolen on the night of 18th January 1952 were identified by Pw.1 and he has deposed to that fact. Ext. T is the search list prepared in that connection. Among the articles thus recovered, those which belonged to Pw.1 and which were stolen on the night of 18th January 1952 were identified by Pw.1 and he has deposed to that fact. The thief Gopalakrishnan Nair was put up for trial for that theft and he was duly convicted, as is evident from the judgment Ext. C. Ext. AU is the deposition given by the accused in the present case when he was examined as a prosecution witness in Ext. C case, and therein he has admitted having received the aforesaid articles from Gopalakrishnan Nair. When examined as Pw. 14 in the present case Gopalakrishnan Nair has admitted that he had committed theft of those articles and had sold them to the accused in the present case at about 7.30 a.m. on 19th January 1952. The respondent accused in his statement in this case admits having received the said articles from Pw. 14 on the morning of 19th January 1952. His explanation is that he made the purchase after he was satisfied that the articles were not stolen articles. During the course of the search evidenced by Ext. T, it was disclosed that some of the articles which Pw. 14 had sold to this accused, belonged to Pw. 7 who had already reported to the police about the theft from his house. Accordingly the police immediately contacted Pw. 7 and recorded his statement Ext. G. Out of the articles recovered as per the search list Ext. T, one item was identified by Pw. 7 as an article stolen from his house. This article has been produced in the present case also and it has been identified and marked as M.O.2. After completing the investigation relating to the theft of the articles from the house of this witness, Gopalakrishnan Nair was put up for trial in Ext. AH case where he was convicted of the said offence. Ext. AT is copy of the deposition given by the present accused when he was examined as a prosecution witness in Ext. AH case. In that deposition he has admitted having purchased from Pw. 14, Gopalakrishnan Nair, M.O.2 and certain other articles on the morning of 19th January 1952. Pw. 14 has also deposed that the articles which he had stolen from the house of Pw. 7 were thus sold to this accused. AH case. In that deposition he has admitted having purchased from Pw. 14, Gopalakrishnan Nair, M.O.2 and certain other articles on the morning of 19th January 1952. Pw. 14 has also deposed that the articles which he had stolen from the house of Pw. 7 were thus sold to this accused. It is further stated by Pw. 14 that this sale was in the early hours of 19th January 1952 Le, at 5.30 a.m. The version given by this accused in the deposition Ext. AT is that M.O.2 and the other articles brought along with it by Pw. 14 were purchased by him for a sum of Rs. 17 or 18 and that all the items excepting M.O.2 were sold by him in his turn for a sum of Rs. 33 even before the police happened to search his shop. As already stated, Pw.1 was able to identify among the articles recovered as per the search list Ext. T, such of the items belonging to him and which were stolen on the night of 18th January 1952. These have been produced in this case and Pw.1 has again identified them as the articles marked as M.O.1. The vessels thus recovered and identified had already been broken into pieces even though the recovery happened to be promptly made on 19th January 1952. One vessel had the name of Pw. 1's wife Annapoorni Ammal, inscribed on it, and this name happened to be left as it was on one of the broken pieces contained in M.O.1 and it served as a clinching circumstance enabling Pw.1 to identify his articles among those recovered as per Ext. T. According to Pw.1 the articles stolen from his house were worth about Rs. 60 at the time of the theft. In the statement given by the accused in the present case he has admitted having received from Pw. 14 the different items of articles involved in the two cases Exts. C and AH. Pw. 14 has stated that when the articles which he had stolen from the house of Pw.1 were sold to this accused, they were not weighed nor was the price ascertained and fixed. After handing over the articles to the accused, Pw. 14 received Rs. 4 from the accused and left the place saying that he would go there later on to receive the balance of the price. After handing over the articles to the accused, Pw. 14 received Rs. 4 from the accused and left the place saying that he would go there later on to receive the balance of the price. In the statement of the accused also it is admitted that only a part payment had been made to Pw. 14 at the time of receiving the articles. At the time of the search as per Ext. T, the accused told the police that Pw. 14 would be going over there shortly to receive the balance of the price amount. On the basis of this information the police waited at a short distance away from the shop of the accused and arrested Pw. 38 who was found to be going to the shop of the accused. Pw. 14 swears to the circumstances which led to the arrest of Pw. 14 as the accused in Ext. C case. It is thus conclusively established by the evidence on record and is also admitted by the accused that the articles which Pw. 14 had stolen from the houses of Pws.1 and 7 had been received by the respondent-accused soon after such theft and that the two cases Exts. C and AH which had been taken against Pw. 14 ended in his conviction. 9. It has also been clearly and conclusively established by the evidence discussed above that the articles involved in the five theft cases Exts. W, AP, Z, AH and C, were stolen articles and that such articles were received by the respondent-accused. The fact of having thus received stolen articles in these five cases within a comparatively short space of time, is in itself sufficient to make out that this accused was in the habit of receiving stolen articles. There is also the further evidence furnished by Exts. AA, AB, AC, AD, VI, VII, J, AJ and AE to show that the stolen articles involved in these 9 cases were also received by this accused. In all these nine cases this accused also stood charged under S. 411 of the Penal Code for having received the stolen articles with knowledge that they were stolen. In the first six of these cases the benefit of doubt whether he had such knowledge or not, was given to him and he was acquitted. But in Exts. In all these nine cases this accused also stood charged under S. 411 of the Penal Code for having received the stolen articles with knowledge that they were stolen. In the first six of these cases the benefit of doubt whether he had such knowledge or not, was given to him and he was acquitted. But in Exts. J, AJ and AE cases it was definitely held that there was no scope for any such doubt and accordingly he was convicted of the offence under S. 411. The explanation offered by the accused in respect of his conduct in having received the articles involved in Exts. W, AP, Z, AH and C cases has to be considered in the light of these outstanding facts. 10. The accused's conduct in having received the articles involved in Exts. AH and C cases may first be examined. It has to be remembered that he received these articles from Pw. 14 who was even at that time a notorious thief as was known to this accused himself to his bitter experience. In Exts. AA to AE cases where Pw. 14 stood charged for the offence of theft, this accused also had to face the trial for the offence under S. 411 in respect of the articles involved in these cases. The accused definitely knew that in all those cases Pw. 14 was convicted of the offence of theft of those articles. Even though the respondent accused got the benefit of doubt in Exts. AA to AD cases, he had to undergo the conviction and sentence for the offence under S. 411 in Ext. AE case. It was from such a person as Pw. 14 that the accused purchased the articles involved in Exts. AH and C cases and that soon after Pw. 14 had come out of jail after undergoing the sentence. The situation was such that the respondent-accused had every reason to believe that the articles taken to him for sale by Pw. 14 in those two cases must be stolen articles. In the statement given by him in those cases he has clearly admitted that such was his reaction when Pw. 14 took these articles to him. All the same he has offered an explanation for having received such articles. According to him he told Pw. 14 that he would not purchase the articles from a convict thief like him. In the statement given by him in those cases he has clearly admitted that such was his reaction when Pw. 14 took these articles to him. All the same he has offered an explanation for having received such articles. According to him he told Pw. 14 that he would not purchase the articles from a convict thief like him. To this Pw. 14 is stated to have replied as follows: "You know that I have not given you any articles before. I have not committed any theft nor have I attempted any theft. I have not undergone any conviction and sentence". Then the accused drew the attention of Pw.14 to the previous convictions (obviously under Exts. AA to AE) and asked him what he had to say about them. It is said that Pw.14 replied that he happened to confess his guilt in those cases at the instance of the police who had told him that they wanted him to teach this accused a lesson. According to the accused he was convinced of the truth of the statement given by Pw. 14. The accused has further stated that it was also known to him that Pw.14 had not committed theft of the articles involved in the prior cases and hence he believed the explanation of Pw.14 and purchased the articles involved in Exts. C and AH cases from him. 11. The hollowness of the explanation put forward by the accused is patent. No weight at all can be attached to his negative assertion that he knows that the articles involved in Exts. AA to AE cases were not stolen by Pw.14, particularly in view of the admission of Pw.14 himself that he had really sold those articles and also of his conviction for the offence of theft in those cases. The evidence of Pws. 3 and 13 supported by the search list Ext. F also goes to prove the recovery of the articles involved in those cases from the shop of this accused, and it was definitely found in those cases that such articles were sold to this accused by the thieves who were found guilty and convicted in those cases. As a receiver of stolen property, this accused was also convicted in Ext. AE case. As a receiver of stolen property, this accused was also convicted in Ext. AE case. In the face of these facts the explanation stated to have been given to this accused by Pw.14 when the latter took the articles involved in Exts. C and AU cases about his pretended innocence in Exts. AA to AE cases, could not be accepted as reasonable and convincing by anybody, much less by this accused who was fully conscious of the results of the trials in those cases. A reading of the explanatory statement given by this accused shows that he is a shrewd person and not a fool or a simpleton as pretended by him. It is impossible to believe that if he had expressed his unwillingness to receive the articles from a notorious thief like Pw.14, the latter would have attempted to convince this accused that he was innocent in the earlier cases, by putting forward an explanation as stated by this accused. Even if such an explanation had been offered, this accused would not have been deceived by such a palpably unacceptable explanation. There can be no doubt that this accused has been straining too much to improvise some sort of an excuse or explanation to cover up his apparently guilty conduct in having received from Pw.14 the articles involved in Exts. C and AH cases. The circumstances that Pw.14, who stood his trial for theft in a series of cases in which this accused has also been charged as a receiver of stolen property, ran up to this accused himself for the purpose of disposing of the articles involved in Ext. C and AH cases immediately after committing theft of those articles that this accused was too ready to purchase the articles from Pw.14, that such purchase was not made at the usual business hours, but at the unusually early hours of 5.30 a.m. and 7 a.m. that Pw.14 was too ready to sell the articles for the price which this accused was willing to pay and did not care to have the articles weighed and the price ascertained, that Pw.14 had no hesitation in leaving the articles in Ext. C case in the shop of this accused after receiving only a nominal amount of Rs. C case in the shop of this accused after receiving only a nominal amount of Rs. 4 out of the price of the same and that this accused lost no time in breaking those articles into scraps all lead to the irresistible conclusion that Pw.14 and this accused were all along acting in league and that they were maintaining mutual confidence even after the termination of Exts. AA to AE cases. The learned Sessions Judge has seriously erred in failing to take note of the significance of these outstanding circumstances and to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective. The failure to do so has been responsible for the conclusion reached by him that the explanation offered by the accused can be accepted as reasonable and convincing. The accused has called a solitary witness on his side to give evidence in support of his version that Pw.14 used to go about selling worn-out house-hold utensils. It has been clearly brought out from the examination of this witness that this witness is a person of no status and that he himself had undergone conviction in a criminal case. It is also seen that he was demonstrating an undue anxiety to state all that he had come prepared to say. After the whole examination was over, he dared to volunteer that Pw.14 was no thief. It is thus clear that this witness is entitled to no weight at all and that he is only a hired witness. 12. From the facts and circumstances already dealt with, it is abundantly clear that the articles involved in Exts. C and AH cases were purchased by this accused with the knowledge that they were stolen articles because the circumstances under which the purchase happened to be made were such that he had every reason to believe them to be stolen articles. The circumstances under which the articles involved in Ext. AP case were purchased were also such as to lead to the same conclusion. These articles consisted of three hammers and a wire-puller and these were taken to this accused by one Chothy, a Pulaya coolie. Such an ordinary coolie could not, under ordinary circumstances, have come into possession of such articles. AP case were purchased were also such as to lead to the same conclusion. These articles consisted of three hammers and a wire-puller and these were taken to this accused by one Chothy, a Pulaya coolie. Such an ordinary coolie could not, under ordinary circumstances, have come into possession of such articles. The explanation offered by the accused is that Chothy explained to him that these articles were his working instruments and that he wanted to dispose of them because he was going to Munnar. On the face of it, such an explanation could not be accepted as true and convincing. This accused was too ready to purchase the articles in spite of the fact that the explanation was such as to prompt any normal mind that Chothy's explanation must be untrue and that he must have stolen the articles from somewhere. Then there is the purchase involved in Ext. Z case from Pw. 6. These articles consisted of some copper wires and a piece of led. The offer of these articles by a person of the position of Pw. 6, would have induced any ordinary person to suspect that Pw. 6 could not have come into possession of the same by normal means. But this accused was too ready to purchase them. This was only consistent with his conduct as disclosed by Exts. AA to AE cases, and hence it has to be taken that he was purchasing these articles in spite of the fact that there was every reason to believe that they were stolen articles. Regarding the barbed wire involved in Ext. W case and which this accused had purchased from Pw. 27, the accused's explanation that he believed that Pw. 27 might have purchased it at the auction conducted at the Cochin Port, can be accepted as a reasonable and convincing explanation and hence the purchase of the articles in Ext. W case cannot be said to have been with the knowledge that the articles were stolen. All the same, the other four instances of purchase in Exts. W, AP, AH and C cases are sufficient in themselves to show that this accused was in the habit of purchasing stolen articles with the knowledge that they were stolen articles. In fact the prosecution evidence has clearly established that this accused had been systematically indulging in such a business. W, AP, AH and C cases are sufficient in themselves to show that this accused was in the habit of purchasing stolen articles with the knowledge that they were stolen articles. In fact the prosecution evidence has clearly established that this accused had been systematically indulging in such a business. Since all the elements of the offence under S. 413 have been clearly brought home to this accused, the learned Sessions Judge's order acquitting the accused cannot be sustained. 13. This appeal has therefore to be allowed and the order of acquittal altered to one of conviction under S. 413 of the Penal Code. In view of the gravity of the offence which this accused is proved to have committed, a deterrent sentence is called for. But the physical condition of this accused induces us not to award a very heavy sentence in this case. He is seen to be physically disabled, being unable to walk about freely. It is also seen that he is fairly advanced in age. Taking these aspects also into consideration, we think that a sentence of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 14. The result is that this appeal is allowed and in reversal of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the respondent accused is convicted of the offence under S. 413 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is remanded to custody. This judgment will be considered as implementing the order pronounced by us in this case on 17th September 1954. Allowed.