N.KAUSHAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist S. N. Kaushal was convicted under section 11 (2) of the Civil Defence Act by a Magistrate of the 1st Class at Agra on 4-12-1971. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- for that offence and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for seven days. He pre­ferred an appeal against that conviction before the Sessions Judge Agra who dismissed the revisionist's appeal through his order dated 10th May 1972. It is against this order of the learned Sessions judge that the present revision has been filed.

(2.) THE revisionist runs a mill in Mohalla Jeoni Mandi in the city of Agra. It is said that at 7.30 p.m. on 4-12-1971 the lights of his mill were found on and they were not being covered by any shed. A Sub-Inspector of police noted that con­travention of the Civil Defence Act being committed by the revisionist and inform­ed Sri V. K. Gupta, a Magistrate of the 1st Class, who was on duty in the area, about it. The learned Magistrate went to revisionist's mill and saw that he was contravening District Magistrate's order about the restrictions upon lights impos­ed under air raid precautions scheme. The Magistrate asked the revisionist to put off the lights but he refused to do so and pleaded that because electric current in the area bad become on recently so be could not extinguish the lights. When told that he was contra­vening an order of the District Magis­trate regarding regulation of lights the revisionist replied that he did not care for such orders. A statement of the revisionist was recorded by the learned Magistrate but the revisionist refused to sign it. Taking that statement to be a plea of his guilt the learned Magistrate sentenced him then and there. As has already been remarked above the Sessions Judge also upheld that order.

(3.) SECONDLY the learned Magistrate has convicted the revisionist on the basis of revisionist's statement which, in the opinion of the Magistrate amounted to a plea admitting his guilt. That entire statement comprises of three questions and their answers. In the first question the revisionist was asked as to whether or not he was the owner of the mill concerned. In the second question he was asked about the contravention of District Magistrate's order relating to regulation of light. His reply was that till 6 p.m. that day no electric current was supplied to his mill. He got it only at 6 p.m. whereby he was running his mill and he could not close it. In the third question he was reminded of the District Magistrate's order to that effect that be is said to have replied that he did not care for such orders. Taking that entire statement, as it is, I am not prepared to hold that it amounts to admission of his guilt by- the appellant. He never admitted that he was contra­vening any rules or regulations or was committing any offence. On the other hand he pleaded his justification for keeping the lights on and expressed his disregard of any order to the contrary. By no stretch of imagination such a statement can be said to be a plea of his guilt having been put forward by the accused.