STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAMAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these references are by the learned Sessions Judge of Ernakulam recommending that the conviction and sentence passed on the accused in these cases be set aside on the ground that the provisions contained in Section 242, Cr. P. C. has not been complied with. Accused in all these cases are employees of the Indian Post and Telegraph Department who were convicted by the learned Munsiff -Magistrate of Alwaye under Section 4 of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance 1 of 1960. The charge against them was that they went on strike and absented from duty. When they were asked to show cause why they should not be convicted they pleaded guilty and the learned Magistrate convicted them on their plea of guilty.

(2.) THE accused took up the matter in revision to the Sessions Judge of Ernakulam and the point that was raised was that the learned Magistrate did not properly explain the accusation to the accused as contemplated under Section 242 Cr. P. C. and that their admission cannot be taken as a plea of guilty of the offence under Section 4 of the Ordinance. Accepting the contention the learned Sessions Judge has referred these cases to this Court under Section 438, Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE question that falls to be decided is whether this would be sufficient compliance with the terms of Section 242, Cr. P. C. and if it is not so whether the conviction has to be set aside.