1. This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, recommending that the sentence of the accused Rama be enhanced to one week's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days' further rigorous imprisonment.
2. The accused was challaned for having sold adulterated milk to Kartar Singh, Food Inspector, Municipal Area, on 2nd of July 1961. A complaint was filed on the 3rd of October 1961 by the Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Committee, Ajmer, Summonses were issued against the accused for 21st of November 1961. Summonses were not served and the ease was adjourned to 5th of December, 1961. Thereafter, there is a note on the back of the complaint which is, as follows:
'M.P.I. present, Accused present, Particulars of the offence read over and explained to the accused. He pleads not guilty and furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500 each for regular Court attendance. But up on 8-1-1962.'
There is no date on this order. On 8-1-1962 the case was adjourned to 23-1-1962 without any further proceedings. On 23-1-1962 the case was again adjourned to 5-2-1962. On 5-2-1962, the following order was passed:
'Parties present, Particulars of the offence read over and explained to the accused Rama, s/o Bhola. He pleads guilty and docs not wish to produce any defence. Hence the accused is convieted under Section 16(a),P. F. A. '54 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 (Rupees five only) or in default to undergo 2 days' S. I.'
Most of what has been written above is part of the rubber seal affixed on the back of the complaint. Of this order only the name of the accused, the offence for which he was hied and the amount of the tine and the days of imprisonment are filled up by the Magistrate.
3. The complainant was dissatisfied on account of the inadequacy of the sentence and he filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, and the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, has made the present reference for enhancement of the sentence.
4. We find that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been followed in the trial of this case. The case was tried as a summons case under Section 242, Cr. P. C. When the accused appeared, the particulars of the offence of which he was accused should have been stated to him and he should have been asked to show cause why he should not be convicted. It was not necessary to frame a charge, and unless there was a formal charge, there was no question of pleading guilty.
Under Section 243, Cr. P. C. it is incumbent onThe Magistrate trying the case to record the statement of the accused in case he admits that he hascommitted the offence of which he is accused asnearly as possible in the words used by him. Asalready pointed out, there arises no question ofpleading guilty. In the rubber seal which wasput on the 5th of February, 1962, the words usedare--'He pleads guilty' which have no relevancewhen the trial is of a summons case. What isrequired is the recording of the admission of theaccused in the words used by him. The learnedMagistrate failed to do so and convicted theaccused on the ground that he had pleaded guilty.The use of a seal of the nature used in this caseis not warranted by the provisions of the law.The accused was being tried for an offence forwhich he could have been sentenced to one year'srigorous imprisonment and it is incumbent on theMagistrate to see that in such a trial the provisionsof the law are obeyed. We regret that on such atrial the conviction of the accused cannot bemaintained.
5. We, therefore, set aside the order of theMunicipal Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer, dated the5th of February, 1962, and also set aside thesentence of fine imposed on the accused. Wesend back the case to the Municipal Magistrate,First Class, Ajmer, for re-trial in accordance withthe provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.