NEW RAGINAYA GOODS MART Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revision applications against the orders of the Court below convicting the petitioners Under Section 268 of the Municipal Act and sentencing them to a fine of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 35/ -.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 22-10-59 the petitioners had stocked the fruit cases on the court road causing obstruction to the traffic thereby. When the petitioners were brought before the Court, the Magistrate does not appear to have explained title substance of accusation to them, as required under the provisions of Section 242 Cr. PC. The Magistrate, however, recorded a plea of guilty in which the accused merely stated that he had deposited certain fruit cases on the road. The Magistrate) convicted the petitioners on the basis of the plea of guilty as referred to above.

(3.) IN my opinion, the conviction as also the sentence imposed on the petitioners cannot be maintained. It is well settled that before a Court can convict an accused person merely on his admission, the admission must be of the offence alleged. In other words, the accused must admit in clear terms all the facts constituting the offence, only then he is liable to be convicted on a plea of guilty. In this particular case, the offence alleged, consists of two essential ingredients.