SIVAGURU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the conviction of the revision Petitioner of an offence under Section 76 of the City Police Act by the learned Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras and the sentence of fine of Rs. 25 in default simple imprisonment for one week meted out to him for that offence. The judgment of the Magistrate says that the revision Petitioner pleaded guilty and was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. By way of records only the night case charge-sheet filed before the Court has been submitted in connection with this revision case. It merely contains the name and address of the revision Petitioner who was the accused in that case and the charge against him. In that charge-sheet, I find the following endorsement: "A P.G. Fd. Rs. 25 i.d. one week S.I." The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner contends that the entire trial is vitiated inasmuch as there has been no compliance with the requirements of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner has also cited the decision in Kouchalya Dass v. State of Madras, 1966 1 SCR 229. That was also a case decided by a Presidency Magistrate and it was observed by the Supreme Court that Section 243, Code of Criminal Procedure is a provision of a special character and according to well established rule of interpretation, that special provision will take precedence and override the general provisions of Section 363(2)(A) of the Code. In the case now before me also, what exactly the revision Petitioner stated when the particulars of the offence of which he was accused were put to him and he was asked to show cause why he should not be convicted, has not been noted by the Magistrate. Section 243 Code of Criminal Procedure requires that if the accused admits that he has committed the offence of which he is accused, his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him and if he shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted, the Magistrate may convict him. Here, the admission of the revision Petitioner has not been recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by the revision Petitioner. In fact, the Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate has not even mentioned of which offence he has found the revision Petitioner guilty. No entries also appear to have been made in the Summary Trial Register which contains various columns, one of which relates to the plea of the accused and another, to the reasons for his conviction and the provisions of law under which he is convicted and the last, to the sentence meted out to him for that offence. Under these circumstances, the conviction in this case is illegal. The conviction and the sentence are set aside and the case is remanded back for re-trial. The retrial will be by any of the Metropolitan Magistrates at Egmore, Madras.