Ajaib Singh J:

This was an appeal against sentence. The appellants were charged on two counts under ss. 392 and 397 read with s. 34 of the Penal Code and upon their pleading guilty to the charges they were each sentenced to four years' imprisonment. In addition the first appellant was ordered to receive two strokes of the rotan and the second appellant was ordered to receive one stroke of the rotan.

The facts of this case as recorded by the learned President of the Sessions Court were that on 26 August 1974 at about 2 a.m. the two appellants together with a third person went to Labu Estate. One of them proceeded to the house of the complainant who was a hospital assistant of the estate dispensary. This person called out the complainant and told him that he had brought an injured man to the dispensary and requested the complainant to give him medical treatment. The complainant dressed up and accompanied the person to the dispensary which was a short distance away from the complainant's house. There the complainant saw two persons seated on a bench near the dispensary. The complainant then opened the dispensary and switched on the lights whereupon the three persons followed him in. Suddenly one of the three confronted the complainant and pointed a knife at his stomach and told him that it was their intention to rob him. The complainant tried to raise an alarm but one of the three pushed a towel into his mouth and removed a gold ring which the complainant was wearing. One of the three persons then left the dispensary and went to the complainant's house. There he told the complainant's wife that her husband wanted her to go to the dispensary. She accompanied this man to the dispensary and she too was confronted by the same person who was armed with a knife. This person then removed a gold ring and a gold chain from her. Both the complainant and his wife were then detained at the dispensary while one of the three persons went back to the complainant's house and ransacked a cupboard in the bedroom from where he took away one Rolex watch, one Longines watch and a lady's Hitex watch. While this was going on a conductor of the estate who was living nearby happened to see that the dispensary lights were on and becoming suspicious he walked up to the dispensary. On seeing him the three persons ran away and were seen driving off in a car. Shortly after that at about 3.10 a.m. the complainant lodged a report at Labu police station. The first appellant was arrested in the afternoon of the same day and the police recovered the three watches from him. Later at about 10.30 p.m. the second appellant was arrested and he led the police to a house in Pajam Estate from where the two gold rings and the gold chain were recovered. A third person alleged to be involved in this case was arrested two days later.

The appellants were produced before the learned President of the Sessions Court on 30 April 1974. They appeared in person and were not represented by Counsel. A brief note purporting to show that the appellants were charged and that they were caned upon to plead thereto appears in the appeal record as follows:

Charge Read Explained - Plead Guilty - Understand Nature and Consequences of Plea.

Following this note the learned president proceeded to record the facts of the case as outlined by the prosecuting officer which I have set out briefly at the outset of this judgment. Thereafter, the learned pre sident after recording "Facts admitted by both the accused" convicted the appellants and imposed the sentences of imprisonment and whipping.

With respect, I must say at once that the manner in which the appellants were charged and their pleas accepted by the learned president was altogether bad and irregular. In the first place it was not clear from the record whether one or both the charges were read out and explained to both or one of the appellants. It was also not stated in the record if the appellants had understood the charges that