PUSARALA NARASINHASWAMY Vs. INDIAN DOMINION
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
Ray, C.J. -
(1.) The petitioner has been convicted by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Nawrangpur under S 7 read with Schedule of Act XXIV  of 1946. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of as. 50 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months.
(2.) On 16-6-1948. he was attempting to transport by toad in lorry (no. work 139) 12 maunda and 17 lbs. of rice in small gunny bags which were kept concealed amongst bags containing tamarind from the right side of the Indravati rives to the left in contravention of Government Notification No. 39547 ST dated 5 11.47. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge before the trial Court who convicted him, as aforesaid. The prosecution had examined two witnesses.
(3.) The legality of the conviction is challenged. This gives rise to a question whether the plea of guilty in the trial Court debars him from challenging the conviction on merits. The learned appellate Court overruled petitioner's contention that he could not, in law, have been convicted of the offence charged. In this connexion he observed : "It appears from the record of statement of the accused prepared by the learned lower Court that the details of the alleged contravention were put to in the form of a single question to the accused and his plea was recorded 'the accused has pleaded guilty to the charge'." He further said: "In the present case, the accused made the plea of guilty after the details of the alleged contravention had been put to him. Hence, the plea of the accused-appellant has been properly recorded and the appellant had appreciated the nature of the charge made against him and then made his plea before the lower Court. Therefore, no appeal will lie except for sentence.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.