AIDAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Aidal Singh and Nahar Singh who were tried summarily of an offence under Section 379 IPC by the City Magistrate, Agra and were convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 and one month's simple imprisonment, and in default of payment of fine to one week's further simple imprisonment. Their appeal has been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

(2.) It has been contended before me on Magistrate did, not comply with the provisions of Sections 242, 243 and 263(g) Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter XX of Code of Criminal Procedure dealt with the trials of summons cases by magistrates and Section 242 in this chapter provides that when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which be is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked if he has any-cause to show why he should not be convicted; but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. Section 243 provides 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 use why he should not be convicted the Magistrate may convict him accordingly. Section 263(g) provides that the Magistrate shall record the plea of the accused and his examination, if any. It does not appear from the record of the summary trial what questions were put by the learned Magistrate to the accused when they were produced before him and What were the answers given by the accused to those questions. In absence of these particulars it cannot be said whether the statements made by the accused clearly amounted to a plea of guilty and they had admitted that they had committed the theft. It also appeal from the record that when the amount were produced before the Magistrate an application for bail was made on their behalf but no order seems to have been passed on this application. The fact that such an application was made indicates that the applicants wanted to contest the case and were not prepared to admit that they had committed the theft. There was no necessity for an application for bail if the applicants admitted the commission of the theft by them and did not want to contest the case. In view of the fact that the learned Magistrate has not complied with the mandatory provisions mentioned above, I am of opinion that this revision should be allowed and the conviction and sentence. of the applicants under Section 379 IPC should be set aside.

(3.) I accordingly allow this revision. The case shall be sent back to the lower court with the direction that it shall be tried afresh according to law.