ORDER The petitioner in this case was on a charge sheet filed by the Margao Police charged by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code for having entered into the residential house of the Complainant/informant. Airish Pereira by climbing the compound wall and for having stolen away some household articles worth about Rs. 282.50. The learned Magistrate had also charged him for 8 previous convictions. The petitioner pleaded previous convictions. He was convicted upon his plea and sentenced to one year of R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- on 8-672. 2. An appeal was preferred against the order of conviction and sentence dated 8-6-72 before the Sessions Judge, Panaji (Criminal Appeal No. 121/72). The learned Sessions Judge came to the findings that there was nothing on record on which the Magistrate could base the conviction, because according to the learned Sessions Judge the plea of the petitioner in the words "I plead guilty" is not a statement made by the petitioner but it was only the conclusion drawn by the Magistrate from the statement made by him that it is the record of an inference which may or may not be well founded. However, I do not find anything on record to show that the petitioner had made any other statement besides, the words "I plead guilty to the charge." I do not know what makes the learned Sessions Judge assume that the petitioner must have made some other statement by the learned Magistrate "I plead guilty" is an inference and conclusion drawn by him and that it is not the statement of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has not stated in his judgment dated 15-9-72 that the petitioner had challenged his plea. That being so it has to be presumed that no such challenge has been made. This presumption of mine is confirmed by the fact that in the memo of Criminal Appeal No. 121/72 the petitioner has not challenged his plea but on the contrary has in someway admitted the guilt and prays for clemency. The Appeal No. 121/72 of the petitioner was therefore falling under the provisions of Section 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code and I am afraid the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in going beyond the plea of the petitioner, when the petitioner himself did not challenge it. The Appeal No. 121/72 of the petitioner was therefore falling under the provisions of Section 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code and I am afraid the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in going beyond the plea of the petitioner, when the petitioner himself did not challenge it. I therefore, utterly fail to understand as to what made the learned Sessions Judge rush to a finding that the recording of words "I plead guilty" is only an inference reached by the learned Magistrate. 3. The learned Sessions Judge further found that there was non-compliance with Section 310 of the Criminal Procedure Code inasmuch as, the charges of previous convictions were framed simultaneously with the charge of thee subsequent offence. On this point also there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner challenged his previous convictions or his plea on this point. On these two grounds the learned Sessions Judge remanded the case for re-trial to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji. 4. Before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji also the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge, However, at this time he made a statement running in about 4 lines. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji also framed additional charges of previous convictions which were also admitted by the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner was accepted and he was convicted under Sections 380 and 457 r/w 75 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo 2 years of R.I. 5. An appeal was preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji to the Sessions Judge, Panaji (Criminal Appeal No. 164/72) The only point that was raised by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 164/72 is that the punishment awarded to him is beyond the limit prescribed by law. The learned Sessions Judge found that there was no substance in his appeal and it was dismissed. 6. The learned Sessions Judge found that there was no substance in his appeal and it was dismissed. 6. The petitioner has stated before me that when he was first tried and convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao he was sentenced only to a period of one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rupees 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 moths R.I. that after the matter was remanded for re-trial to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji he has been sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji to two years of R.I., thereby increasing the sentence that he was given earlier. Although there is nothing in law to bar the Magistrate from awarding a higher sentence in a re-tried case, than the one inflicted in the first trial, it appears to me that it would be somewhat harsh to inflict a heavier penalty. From what I have stated above, it follows this is not a case where an accused had challenged his plea in the Appellate Court as a consequence of which a remand was made, but the remand of the case for reasons which are not sound in law. That being the position I feel that the sentence could and should not have been enhanced. In the result I pass the following order : The petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the petitioner is upheld. However, he is sentenced to one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months R. I. The period of sentence already undergo by the petitioner in this case shall be deducted. Petition partly allowed.