JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned officiating Sessions Judge of Dinajpur, who agreeing with both the assessors convicted the accused persons u/s 392, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to five years' rigorous imprisonment each.

2. It appears that certain persons entered the house of the complainant at night and having used great violence carried away his money, documents and jewelleries. The complainant told the Police that he only saw three persons. The Police after making investigation held that there had been dacoity in which at least six persons were concerned and they sent those six persons, among whom were the three present appellants, up to the Magistrate for trial preliminary to commitment u/s 395, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate discharged three of these accused for want of evidence and committed the three appellants to the Sessions u/s 395, that is, for being concerned in dacoity. The learned Sessions Judge, without assigning any reason, amended the charge to one of robbery, thereby, before hearing the evidence, changing the character of the charge altogethei; and now that we know that the presumption that. the appellan