Horwill, J.

1. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge of Kistna of an offence punishable under Section 379, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment.

2. The appellant was tried by jury. It was doubted at the time of admission whether the pointing out of the complainant by the accused was admissible in evidence against him; but in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Emperor v. Ramanuja Iyengar(1934) 68 M.L.J. (Supp.) 73 : I.L.R. Mad. 642 there can be no doubt that if a complainant is discovered as a result of a statement made by the accused, that statement is admissible; for the material fact discovered as a result of that statement is the theft from the complainant.

3. The appellant was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment because of a previous conviction. The accused admitted the previous conviction, but stated that it had been set aside in appeal. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have disregarded that statement altogether without any inquiry. If his statement had been true, then there would have been no proved previous convictions, and Section 75, Indian Penal Code, should not have been applied, and the sentenc