AKIL PASHA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were prosecuted before the City Magistrate, Mysore, for offences under Section 58 (b) of the Prohibition Act. They were convicted and each was sentenced under Section 58 (b) of the Prohibition Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months. In an appeal by the accused, the Sessions Judge, Mysore, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate and disallowed the appeal. It is against the order of the Sessions Judge that the accused have preferred this revision petition.

(2.) It has been strenuously argued by Shri Sabeel, on behalf of the petitioner that the plea of guilt which has been recorded by the Magistrate is in contravention of the provisions of Sections 242 and 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He argued that the joint plea of both the accused has been recorded by the Magistrate and therefore this joint recording of the statement amounts to irregularity and thus vitiates the whole trial. His second contention was that the material before the Magistrate was insufficient to base a conviction. The arrack which was stated to be in the possession of the accused has not been produced in the cage, nor, the same has been sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination. He submitted that the Magistrate was not right in convicting the accused on such in. sufficient record. His third contention was, in view of the nature of the offences, if it is held to be established against the accused, the sentence passed by the Magistrate is rather harsh.

(3.) I find substance in the first contention. The statements of the accused have been recorded by the Magistrate jointly. It reads as follows: Yes. We two together were manufacturing arrack. And after it was manufactured, 8 drama of arrack was in the bottle. It was wrong. We accept the wrong.