RAM CHARAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision from an order dismissing an appeal in a Section 110 case. The accused, along with several other persons was tried, under Section 110 of the Criminal P.C. After the evidence of a number of prosecution witnesses including civil and military officers had been recorded, the accused was asked by the Magistrate why he should not be bound down. The reply of the accused was: I have no objection. I shall furnish security. I have never been convicted before. I shall produce no defence evidence. I have no witnesses.

(2.) The Magistrate however examined more witnesses and did not take the statement to be a plea of guilty. He held on the evidence that a good case had been made out for an order under that section. The accused appealed to the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge dealing with the case of this particular applicant remarked as follows: There is no force in the appeal of Ram Charan, Yadram and Bhabhuti inasmuch as all three of them expressed their willingness to furnish security for their good behaviour and produced no defence. This was tantamount to a plea of guilty after evidence of several witnesses had been recorded against the appellants. I dismiss the appeal of these three men.

(3.) It is apparent that the learned Judge having come to the conclusion that the statement of the accused persons amounted to a plea of guilty did not consider the appeal on its merits and did not examine the prosecution evidence and come to an independent conclusion of his own. The question raised in this revision is that the learned Judge was in error in treating the willingness of the accused to furnish security as amounting to a plea of guilty.