Order.- The two revisions are by the two accused in N.C. No.60456 of 1953 on the file of the Hony. Presidency Magistrates, G.T., Madras. Two Magistrates have constituted a Bench and they have convicted the petitioners on a charge which was laid before them for an offence under section 75 of the City Police Act. The judgment consists of four lines. Beyond stating that the accused accepted previous convictions and sentencing them to a fine, the judgment does not set out what the facts of the case are. It has been held repeatedly that the judgment must contain at least very briefly what the case against the accused is. Even in a case of an offence under section 75 of the City Police Act, the judgment must state where the accused behaved in a disorderly manner, so that the appellate or revisional Court may know from the judgment itself whether the facts amount to an offence. No doubt, in this case the accused pleaded guilty, and the Magistrates seem to have been influenced by previous convictions of the accused. In what case and for what offences they have been previously convicted is not clear from the judgment at all. Magistrates must know that previous convictions are not relevant except in cases where the application of section 75, Indian Penal Code, is sought by the prosecution. It is only from the appeal memos, sent from the jail that we see that one of the petitioners appears to have been convicted under the Immoral Traffic Act. The Magistrates should not have made any reference whatsoever to their previous convictions under the Immoral Traffic Act, as that is certainly not relevant for a case under section 75 of the City Police Act. The judgment is very very unsatisfactory; in the circumstances I have no other go but to set aside the convictions and sentences and direct the release of the petitioners immediately. If the petitioners had paid the fines, they will be refunded to them. A copy of the judgment will be forwarded to the Magistrates for their future guidance. K.S. ----- Convictions set aside.