Daveed Chellayan vs The State

Joseph vithayathil, J.—This reference is by the learned Sessions Judge-of Nagcrcoil. The accused in This case was convicted by the Kuzhithurai First Class Magistrate for an offence u/s 8 (1) A of Act 13 of 1950 and sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 40 and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for 20 days.

The case against the accused is ''that he was found keeping in his possession 14 ounces of arrack in a bottle underneath a granary in his house which is within the prohibition area. On the ground that the accused pleaded guilty, the learned Magistrate convicted him without taking evidence. When the accused was brought before Court on 27-10-1955 he was asked by the learned Magistrate whether he had committed the offence mentioned in tire charge and he stated that he had not committed the offence.

The case was then adjourned to 7-11-1955 and the accused was kept under police custody. On 7-11-1955 a statement signed by the accused in which he admitted his guilt was put into Court by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate asked the accused whether he had signed the statement and the accused admitted that he had signed it and that he had committed the offence. On die basis of this admission the learned Magistrate convicted the accused without taking evidence.

In revision filed before the Sessions Court by the accused, die learned Sessions Judge held that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate was wrong and has accordingly made this reference.

We agree wide the opinion of the learned 5ns Judge that the procedure adopted by the Tgistrate is opposed to law. Having recorded the of not guilty, the learned Magistrate was bound Dceed wide the examination of the prosecution witnesses and dispose of the case on the merits. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising the Magistrate to question the accused a second time as to whether he pleaded guilty or not and to convict him on the plea off guilty. Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him and that he shall be asked if he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted.

Section 243 provides that if the accused admits-that ho has committed the offence his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him and that if he shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted the: Magistrate may convict him accordingly. Section 244 provides that if the Magistrate does not convict the accused, u/s 243 or if the accused does not make an admission of guilt the Magistrate shall proceed to their the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence Section 245 provides that if the Magistrate upon taking evidence finds the accused not guilty he shall record an order of acquittal and that if he finds the accused guilty pass sentence upon him according to law.

It is thus clear that when the accused pleaded not guilty when he was questioned by the learned Magistrate u/s 242 the Magistrate was bound to proceed in the manner prescribed by Section 244. The learned Magistrate has clearly gone wrong in questioning the accused a second time and in convicting him on the plea of guilty. Lalji Ram Vs. Corporation of Calcutta, We accept the reference and set aside the conviction entered against the accused and the sentence passed on him by the learned Magistrate and send back the case for fresh trial by the learned Magistrate according to law and In the light of the observation made above.