STATE Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh for setting aside the conviction and sentence upon four accused men who were punished under Sections 37 and 39, Indian Mines Act and for sending the case back for a fresh trial so that the prosecution might get an opportunity to prove the charges.

(2.) A few facts may be set out in this connection. The accused were the owners, manager and clerk, respectively, of Messrs Punjab Coal Company, Datma Colliery, Ranchi. The allegations against them were that they had contravened Regulations 1 and 149 of the Mines Regulation and were, therefore, punishable under Sections 37 and 39, Indian Mines Act. It was said that these men had employed women to work underground and had not kept a correct record of the women workers employed to work as such.

(3.) The offences under those sections are punishable with fines of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/-, respectively, and, accordingly, the learned Magistrate, to whom the case was sent for disposal, adopted the procedure meant for the trial of summons cases and, when the accused were brought before him, the particulars of the offences were stated to them and they were asked under Section 242, Criminal P. C., why they should not be convicted. The accused are said to have admitted the commission of the offences under Section 213, Criminal P. C., and, thereafter, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 10/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three days. Now, the learned Magistrate would have been perfectly justified in convicting and sentencing the accused on admission of truth of the accusation, provided they had actually admitted the same. In this case, however, although the accused. In the first part of their statement, said that they had committed the offence, they added immediately that those women had gone underground not in the course of employment, but to reach meals to their male relations who were working there. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that this was no admission of commission of the offence by the three accused under Section 242, Criminal P. C., and by one accused under Section 342, Criminal P. C., as they virtually exonerated themselves by giving an explanation for sending some women underground. In my opinion, such admissions must be treated as a whole and cannot be taken to pieces and one considered independently of the other. In -- 'Rex v. Ingleson', (1915) 1 KB 512 (A), it was held that a man could not be said to have pleaded guilty when he qualified his admission "I am guilty of taking the horses" by adding, "not knowing them to be stolen". It was in effect a plea of not guilty and the case had to go back for re-hearing. This decision recently received the approval of a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division presided over by three Judges -- 'Regina v. Durham Quarter Sessions, 'Ex parte' Virgo', (1952) 2 QB 1 (B). The accused in this case, after pleading guilty added a rider and qualified his plea by stating that the motor cycle, the theft of which was the gravamen of the charge, belonged to his 'mate' and he had taken it home on that belief by mistake.