BHANDARI, J - (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 and 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, Muncipal Committee, Ajmer Summonses were issued against the accused for 21st of November, 1961. Summonses were not served and the case 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. Put up on 8-1-62. " THEre is no date on this order. On 8-1-62 the case was adjourned to 23-1-62 without any further proceedings. On 23-1-62 the case was again adjourned to 5-2-62. On 5-2-62, 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 does not wish to produce any defence. Hence the accused is convicted under sec. 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 tried and the amount of the fine and the days of imprisonment are filled up by the magistrate.
The complainant was dissatisfied on account of the inadequacy of the sentence and he filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Ajmer who has made the present reference for enhancement of the sentence.

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 sec. 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 sec. 243 Cr. P. C. it is incumbent on the magistrate trying the case to record the statement of the accused in case he admits that he has committed the offence of which he is accused as nearly as possible in the words used by him. As already pointed out, there arises no question of pleading guilty. In the rubber seal which was put on the 5th of February, 1962 the words used are "he pleads guilty" which have no relevance when the trial is of a summons case. "what is" required is the recording of the admission of the accused in the words used by him. The learned magistrate failed to do so and convicted the accused on the ground that he had pleaded guilty. The use of a seal of the nature used in this case is not warranted by the provisions of the law. The accused was being tried for an offence for which he could have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and it is incumbent on the magistrate to see that in such a trial the provisions of the law are obeyed. We regret that on such a trial the conviction of the accused cannot be maintained.

We, therefore, set aside the order of the Municipal Magistrate, First Class Ajmer dated the 5th of February 1962 and also set aside the sentence of fine imposed on the accused. We send back the case to the Municipal Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer for retrial in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. .