KANHAYALAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. This revisional application and the other Criminal Revision No. 187-B of 1930, are filed by two brothers who have been convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Basim, of an offence under Section 157, I.P.C., and sentenced to Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 200 fine. Their appeals have been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Akola. Admittedly both of, them have been convicted on their alleged admission of guilt under Section 243, Criminal P.C. Although the learned trying Magistrate in his judgment does' not say so, the learned Sessions Judge in para 5 of his judgment interprets the statements of the accused recorded by the Magistrate as "an admission of the offence." It is urged for the applicants that since they have never admitted the commission of the offence of which they were accused their conviction is ultra vires. This contention seems to me to be well founded.

(2.) AFTER stating the facts appearing in the police challan the trying Magistrate made the following record: Particulars explained as above. Asked to show cause why they should not be convicted under Section 157, I.P.C., for harbouring persons to become members of an unlawful assembly. Statement,--Kanhayilal Bholaram Mahosti Rhati of Mangrulpir, age 35 years: I admit the truth of the allegations. I live in the same house. I have not received any rent. Pot is mine, * * * Damodar Bholaram Marwadi of Mangrulpir, age 19 years: I admit the truth of the allegations. I was a volunteer too. Pot is mine.

(3.) IT is difficult to construe the aforesaid statements of the applicants as admissions of guilt on their part. Admissions of truth of the allegations on which a charge is based cannot legally amount to an admission on the part of accused "that he has committed the offence of which he is accused." Where, in a prosecution for obstructing the road with a bullock cart, the accused, on being questioned whether he drove the cart on "the particular road without permission, answered that he drove the cart without permission on account of ignorance and begged to be excused, it was held by the Punjab High Court in Emperor v. Ghulam Raza A.I.R. 1925 Lah. 153, that this did not amount to an admission that he had committed the offence and that the conviction based thereon was Wrong.