KESHAVA RAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Keshava Rai against the judgment of the City Magistrate, Jaipur, dated 8th August, 1952, convicting the petitioner under sec. 3/112 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving a vehicle in a public place without a licence, and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 20/ -. The petitioner went in revision to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, but he did no succeed there. He has now come to this Court.

(2.) THE accused was tried summarily by the City Magistrate, Jaipur, and he was convicted and sentenced as stated above on the statement of the accused which was recorded by the Magistrate. THE point which has been pressed in this revision on behalf of the petitioner is that the City Magistrate who tried the case, failed to record the plea of the accused, which it was necessary for him to record under sec, 263 (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sec. 263 gives the specifications of the record to be kept in cases which are not appealable. In such cases the plea of the accused and his examination, if any, has to be recorded by the court. In the present case the Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused saying that he drove a vehicle, and that he did not get a licence till then. THE learned Magistrate thought that this statement amounted to a plea of guilty. Sec. 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that "no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective licence issued to himself authorising him to drive the vehicle. . . " Driving of a vehicle without a licence alone is not prohibited by this provision of law. Driving of a vehicle in a public place without a licence is prohibited. THE accused was not asked whether he drove the vehicle without a licence in a public place. THEre is nothing in the examination of the accused suggesting that he drove a vehicle without a licence in a public place. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the examination of the accused in this case contained all the ingredients of the offence with which the accused was charged. THE learned City Magistrate was, therefore not right in thinking that the statment of the accused amounted to a plea of guilty. It is the duty of a Magistrate to record a plea of the accused in every case, and the trial is vitiated if this requirement of the procedure is not respected. THE conviction of the accused is, therefore, illegal and cannot be maintained, As this is a petty case, in which maximum punishment provided by law is a fine of Rs. 20/- only, it does not seem necessary to order a retrial of the case. Facing of the prosecution itself in the circumstances of this case should be deemed to be sufficient punishment.