SARDARI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Sessions Judge, Jammu has made this reference to this court recommending that the conviction recorded against the petitioner may be set aside.

(2.) I have perused the order of reference. Mr. Vs. Malhotra appearing on behalf of the State supports the reference. The petitioner was challaned before the Special Mobile Magistrate. Jammu for contravention of an offence under section 42/ 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was tried summarily, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 100/ - by the trial Magistrate.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge in his reference has observed that the trial Magistrate had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law relating to the mode of recording the examination of the accused in summary cases. Merely writing the accused pleaded guilty was not sufficient compliance with section 243 of the code. Non Compliance with these provisions of law vitiated the trial I fully agree with the legal principles enunciated by the learned Sessions Judge in his reference. Times and again the trial Magistrates dealing with the case under the Motor Vehicle Act have been impressed upon to comply strictly with the procedural law relating to the mode of trial in summary cases but it seems that the observations made by this court are not paid any heed by them with the result that very often reference are made with recommendations , that the convictions recorded in the manner be set aside. The Magistrates dealing with the trial of the summary cases must know they have to record the plea of the accused as nearly as possible in his own words It is not sufficient compliance of the law to record merely that the accused has pleaded guilty without recording the words of the accussed as provided by the law. In AIR 1960 J&K 64 this court observed that where in a summary trial of a summons case, the Magistrate did not record the plea of the accused pleaded guilty it would not be said to be sufficient conformity with the requirement of law.