Order The accused, who is deaf and dumb, was charged with offences punishable under sections 454 and 380, Indian Penal Code, for having gained entrance into the village cattle pound by scaling over the wall and committing theft of three sheep of the value of Rs. 40. The accused was entrusted with goats for the purpose of grazing by P.Ws. 3 and 4. On 1st May, 1954, at about 10 a.m. the goats were sent to Tirupachoor cattle pound by the village talayari on the ground that they grazed on private lands and locked in the pound. The accused is alleged to have jumped over the fence of the pound and removed the goats from the shed inside the pound. The Sub-Magistrate in his order states that the circumstances appearing in the evidence in the case were explained to the accused through his mother and that, as his mother is accustomed to communicate with him by means of signs and as she interpreted to the accused the evidence, he (the Sub-Magistrate) was satisfied that the accused understood the evidence let in against him, the question put to him under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code and also the charge framed against him. On the evidence, the Sub-Magistrate finds the accused guilty and as the accused is deaf and dumb, he has submitted the records to the High Court through the District Magistrate, Vellore, under section 341, Criminal Procedure Code, for orders. Section 341, Criminal Procedure Code, provides that if the accused, though not insane, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the trial and if such trial results in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court for orders. It is only in cases where the accused cannot be made to understand the proceedings that the procedure prescribed in section 341, Criminal Procedure Code, should be followed. But, in the present case the Sub-Magistrate seems to be satisfied that the accused understood the proceedings and if so section 341 will have no application. But, apparently, as a matter of abundant caution the Sub-Magistrate thought it fit to proceed under section 341. But, in the present case the Sub-Magistrate seems to be satisfied that the accused understood the proceedings and if so section 341 will have no application. But, apparently, as a matter of abundant caution the Sub-Magistrate thought it fit to proceed under section 341. A similar case came up for consideration before Yahya Ali, J., in Emperor v. Oomayan1, whete also the accused was a deaf and dumb person and he was convicted under section 379, Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate found that the accused by signs admitted the offence in Court and he also pointed out before the police the stolen property. The learned Judge, however, took the view that it was not safe to act on mere gestures of that kind either to infer that he was the thief or to hold that he admitted the offence. It is difficult to find in this case that the accused was able to understand by the signs of his mother the offences and its ingredients with which he was charged and the evidence of the witnesses. I am therefore of the same view as Yahya Ali, J., that it is unsafe to act on mere gestures and convict a deaf and dumb person for these offences. It cannot, however, be laid down as a general proposition that in no case a deaf and dumb person could be charged and convicted for any criminal offence. The offence with which the accused here is charged arises out of an incident, which should not have been taken serious notice of but disposed of by a reprimand or warning by the village munsif to whose notice it was brought, instead of filing a complaint and proceeding with the trial. It is not possible to hold that the accused was aware that the shed in which the goats were kept was the village pound and that one should not enter the same and remove the cattle. It might be that the accused was under the impression that the goats had been removed and put in a private shed and he might have thought that he was entitled to remove these goats and no one had any business to remove the goats in his custody and put in a shed. On the facts of this case and from the nature of the offences, the conviction could not be upheld. The accused will be acquitted. On the facts of this case and from the nature of the offences, the conviction could not be upheld. The accused will be acquitted. K.C. ----- Accused acquitted.