JUDGMENT S.R. Sen, J. 1. This instant appeal in hand arose out of a letter addressed to Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench by a convict Vanlalauva in Cr. Tr. (Klb) No. 796 of 2010 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. From record it appears that convict Vanlalauva approached the Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench from jail through District Jail Authority, Kolasib. 2. In the said letter dated nil convict stated that he was convicted and is in jail since 2.11.2010 in connection with Cr. Tr. (Klb) No. 796 of 2010 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of the fine another 60 days and he is disappointed with the period of conviction. It is further stated that he made an appeal before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge who has reduced the sentence to 4 years and imposed Rs. 2000/- in default another 60 days and being aggrieved, he made an appeal through his letter on the ground that he is sick and unable to look after himself in the jail and his health condition is deteriorating day by day. So, he prayed for reconsideration of his case. On the basis of the said letter of the convict, this criminal appeal was registered and came up for hearing before me. After going through the record, I find that, the matter can be disposed of today itself. Therefore, I appointed Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant who consented to act and take up the matter on behalf of the appellant/convict. Learned Addl. Advocate General/P.P., Mr. A.K. Rokhum is also present before this court. 3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is that, on 1.11.2010 at about 9.30 p.m. an FIR was lodged by Zuiliani at the Kawnpui Police Station to the effect that on the night of 29.10.2010, her shop had been burgled by some unknown miscreant by breaking the wall and had stolen goods worth of Rs. 5,280/-. Hence, Kawnpui Police Station had registered the case as Kawnpui P.S. Case No. 37 of 2010 dated 1.11.2010 under Sections 457/380 IPC. During the course of investigation after examining the different witnesses the accused/convict person was arrested and after completion of investigation the I.O. concerned found a prima facie case against the accused and charge-sheeted him under sections 457 and 380, IPC. During the course of investigation after examining the different witnesses the accused/convict person was arrested and after completion of investigation the I.O. concerned found a prima facie case against the accused and charge-sheeted him under sections 457 and 380, IPC. 4. Learned counsel, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, Amicus Curiae submitted that, in this instant case the entire trial had taken place without following any norms of law and convict was simply convicted on his plea of guilty though prosecution had cited 8 number of witnesses but none were examined as appeared in the record. Learned counsel also further submitted that even the framing of charge in the absence of signature of the accused/convict is irregular, unlawful and cannot be relied on. Learned counsel also vehemently submitted that the punishment imposed in this case is too harsh in comparison with the stolen items which only Rs. 5280/- and convict person is in jail since 2.11.2010 till date and he further submitted that the accused had suffered enough punishment. So, he may be released forthwith. 5. On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General/P.P., Mr. A.K. Rokhum referred to Section 375 and submitted that appellant has no stand to file this appeal and also submitted that there is nothing wrong with the judgment passed by the learned court below. So, appeal may be dismissed or case may be remanded back for fresh trial. 6. After hearing the submission forwarded by learned counsels at bar and after going through the order dated 3.11.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib, Mizpram I find that learned court below while framing charge has convicted the accused on the ground of his pleading guilty as well as considering the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. both under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. 7. From the said impugned order it also appears that, while passing the sentence awarded 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. Under section 380 IPC awarded sentence for a period of 4 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default payment of fine another 30 days and also ordered that both the sentences shall run consecutively. That means, punishment awarded in total is 7 years along with Rs. 2000/- fine in default of payment of fine and another 60 days imprisonment. 8. 1000/- in default payment of fine another 30 days and also ordered that both the sentences shall run consecutively. That means, punishment awarded in total is 7 years along with Rs. 2000/- fine in default of payment of fine and another 60 days imprisonment. 8. On careful reading of the charge framed, I have noticed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib while framing the charge totally forgotten the provision of law or overlooked the provision of law. The charge does not reflect whether accused has really pleaded guilty or not and whether the charge was explained to the convict at the time of framing the charge which is against the principle of criminal jurisprudence. 9. While framing charge; a criminal court is duty bound to explain the charge to the accused and then to ask his opinion and that, need to reflect in the framing of charge with the signature or thumb impression of the accused, whatever the case may be, but in this case, I find that the learned Magistrate nowhere recorded that, the charge was explained nor his plead guilty has been recorded nor his signature is obtained. As such I find the entire framing of charge is contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Hence, it cannot be accepted. 10. When the framing of charge itself is not tenable in law the conviction merely on the basis of plead guilty by the convict at the time of framing of charge is also not tenable in law. This court is also shocked and could not understand for what reason learned court did not examine the prosecution witnesses though record speaks prosecution while filing the charge-sheet cited as many as 8 witnesses to support their cases. The instant case definitely comes within the purview of one warrant triable case by a Magistrate and for which procedure and rules are laid down in Chapter XIX, of Criminal Procedure Code which starts from Section 238 Cr. P.C. The provision to framing charge is well founded under Section 240 Cr. P.C. but in this case the basis of the conviction is pleaded guilty which is not itself in accordance with the provision of Section 240 Cr. P.C. The provision to framing charge is well founded under Section 240 Cr. P.C. but in this case the basis of the conviction is pleaded guilty which is not itself in accordance with the provision of Section 240 Cr. P.C. While going through the order dated 3.11.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate; I find the entire order is executive order rather than a judicial order and learned court passed the order very mechanically without applying his judicial mind which is unacceptable. 11. Now, on careful reading of the judgment dated 7.05.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl sitting as an appellate court, I find the said judgment is more mechanical than the judgment pissed by the trial court. Learned court sitting as an appellate court do not give any specific reason as to how he came to a conclusion to support the impugned order dated 3.11.2010 passed by the trial court and just simply reduced the sentence without any reason and discussion. It is a settled principle of law that court cannot convict a person for more satisfaction. Otherwise, the ends of justice will fail. It is not the duty of the court just to award sentence mechanically or arbitrarily without considering the gravity of the offence. Before I part with this case record, I observe that the entire trial was in mechanical manner without applying judicial mind and the sentence awarded is without comparison to the gravity of offence. Beside, sentence awarded in two different cases are directed consecutively. As such, it is not sustainable in the eye of law as such both the judgments needs to be set aside, which I accordingly do. 12. From record it appears that the accused person is in jail since 2.11.2010 till date which both the learned counsel for the State as well as the Amicus Curiae also agreed that he is in jail almost more than 15 months. In my considered view he has already suffered bigger punishment than the offence which he had actually committed. 12. From record it appears that the accused person is in jail since 2.11.2010 till date which both the learned counsel for the State as well as the Amicus Curiae also agreed that he is in jail almost more than 15 months. In my considered view he has already suffered bigger punishment than the offence which he had actually committed. Hence, this court set aside both the judgment and order dated 3.11.2010 and 7.5.2011 and direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib to take immediate step to set free the convict at liberty, if he is not required in any other case or cases and submit the report to this Registry within 5 days from the date of this Judgment and Order. 13. With this observation, direction appeal is allowed and stands disposed of. 14. Registry is directed to return the lower court case record to the concerned court along with the copy of the Judgment and Order. Mizoram State Legal Service Authority is further directed to pay the fee of Rs. 5000/- to Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae as per the rule and procedure.