1. The appellant Govind Dipaji More has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, of an offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code and he has been sentenced to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment. He has appealed against this order of conviction and sentence.

2. The prosecution story is very brief indeed. Umedmal, who is a prosecution witness in this case, is a servant in the shop known by the name of Lakhmichand Dhanrupji and Company. Witness Mangilal is a partner, in this Shop. The shop carries on business in utensils and gold and silver ornaments. It is situated at Chunabhatti, Swadeshi Mill Road, Kurla.

The Incident, which is the subject-matter of the prosecution, occurred in the morning of 22-5-1955, at about 8 Oclock Umedmal and Mangilal were present in the shop. They were counting small cash. The cash box was lying nearby. At that time the appellant entered the shop. He had an open knife in his hand. At the point of the knife he demanded a sum of Rs. 40/- from Umedmal. Umedmal said that he did not possess that much amount.

Thereupon the appellant, with one hand of his, showed the knife to Umedmal and with his other hand he picked up a currency note of Rs. 5/-from the Galla. He administered a threat to Umedmal and Mangilal that if they dared complain about the incident to anybody they would be done away with.

As a result of this, threat Umedmal and Mangilal became nervous and they closed the door of the shop after the appellant left. Shortly there, after they noticed that Sub-Inspector Sane of the Kurla Police Station was going along the road. Upon seeing the Sub-Inspector the courage of Umedmal, which had temporarily deserted Umedmal returned to Umedmal. He opened the door of the shop and complained to the Sub-Inspector. Thereupon the Sub-Inspector took Umedmal to the room of the appellant. It may be noted that the appellant was previously known to Umedmal.

There was, therefore, no difficulty in the Police Sub-Inspector taking Umedmal directly to the room of the appellant. The door of the appellants room was closed. But tt was locked from outside. The Sub-Inspector called the mother of the appellant and got the room opened. The appellant was found lying absolutely drunk inside the room.

The Sub-Inspector made a panchnama and took the appellant to the Sion Hospital. These are the facts of the prosecution case upon which the appellant was prosecuted under Section 392 read, with Section 397 of the Penal Code for committing an offence of robbery and using a deadly weapon at the time of committing it.

3. The defence of the appellant is that he did not commit any offence. He admits that he had gone to the shop of Lakhmichand Dhanrupji and Co. in the morning of 22-5-1955, but he says he had gone there for redeeming two pots which he had previously pledged with the shop. According to the appellants contention Umedmal refused to return the pots to him and thereupon he left the shop.

He denies having gone to the shop with a knife and he denied having shown a knife to Umedmal and having taken away a currency note of Rs. 5/- from the Galla of the shop.

4. As the conviction of the appellant rests upon the acceptance by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the majority verdict of the Jury holding the appellant guilty under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code, it would not be open to us to go through the evidence ourselves and determine the guilt or otherwise of the appellant, unless the appellants learned Advocate is able to satisfy us that the learned Judges charge to the jury suffers from misdirections or non-directions amounting to misdirection.

In this connection the learned Advocate Mr. Sukhtankar appearing for the appellant has frankly conceded before us that he is unable to find any observations in the learned Judges charge to the Jury which he can characterise as amounting to misdirections or non-directions constituting misdirections. That being so,