Order. — The accused was charged with offences punishable under sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code. He is said to have entered into a building belonging to one Bellana Somesekhara Rao after the hour of sunset and before the hour of sunrise and committed theft of rice worth about Rs.10. Three witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case and they all spoke to the accused having been caught red-handed with the rice at the house of the complainant. The accused who is a dumb man seems to have admitted the commission of the offence by signs. It is curious that, instead of noting that the admission was by means of signs, the Magistrate recorded the answers made by signs as though they were stated by the accused. Apart from .this admission, there is ample evidence in this case to bring home the guilt to the accused. The accused was therefore properly convicted. There has also been a fair and a proper trial. The Sub-Magistrate has remarked that the accused in spite of his being a deaf and dumb man could understand the proceedings. If so, there was no necessity to submit the proceedings to this Court under section 341, Criminal Procedure Code. That section could be invoked only when it is found that a person is unable to understand the proceedings. The mere fact that the accused was a deaf and dumb person would not necessitate the submission of proceedings under that section, if in the opinion of the Magistrate, the accused could apprehend the nature of the proceedings against him. In support of the action of the Magistrate; the Public Prosecutor referred me to Emperor v. Oomayan1. What was laid down by Mr. Justice Yahya Ali was that in the case of a deaf and dumb man who is unable to understand the proceedings of the Court it is not safe to convict a person on an admission inferred from the gestures of the accused. To the same effect is the view of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., in Oomai v. State2. These rulings have no application to this case. The validity of the conviction is not involved here. Further, there is other evidence apart from the admission of the accused. To the same effect is the view of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., in Oomai v. State2. These rulings have no application to this case. The validity of the conviction is not involved here. Further, there is other evidence apart from the admission of the accused. The Magistrate has referred the matter for orders in spite of his finding that the accused, though a deaf and a dumb person, could understand the proceedings against him. The condition precedent to his reporting the matter to the High Court for orders is the incapacity of the accused to understand the proceedings. So the Magistrate need not have submitted the case under section 341, Criminal Procedure Code. However, as the matter is before me now, I will dispose of it. In the circumstances of the case there can be no doubt that the trial was a fair and sufficient trial. I have only to pass an appropriate sentence. Although the accused was found guilty under sections 380 and 457, Indian Penal Code, having regard to the nature and value of the property, namely, rice worth About Rs. 10, the ends of justice will be met by sentencing him to three months’ rigorous imprisonment. D.L.N. ------- Order accordingly.