Seth, J. - (1.) The applicant has been convicted of an offence under Section 4, D. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200. He was tried summarily. His conviction is based on his own plea and not upon any evidence produced in the case. There is no note on the record of the case about what was stated by the applicant beyond "pleads guilty."
(2.) The applicant applied in revision to the Sessions Judge of Agra which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of that place. It was contended before him that the applicant did not admit before the learned Magistrate that he had committed the offence of which he was accused and that the learned Magistrate had wrongly construed his statement as a plea of guilty. According to the applicant, the learned Magistrate only asked whether the Inspector had taken sample from the oil and the applicant replied in the affirmative, adding that it was meant for burning purposes. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure paid down by Sections 242 and 243, Criminal P. C., and has, therefore, referred the case to this Court, with the recommendation that the conviction of the applicant and the sentence awarded to him, be set aside.
(3.) Section 262, Criminal P. C. requires that in summary trials, with certain exceptions, the procedure prescribed for the trial of summons cases and the warrant cases shall be followed accordingly as a case may be a summons case or a warrant case. It reads as follows: "In trials under this Chapter, the procedure prescribed for summons cases shall be followed in summons cases and the procedure prescribed for warrant cases shall be followed in warrant cases, except as hereinafter mentioned." The present case being a summons case, the learned Magistrate was bound to follow the procedure prescribed for the trials of summons cases, except in so far as that procedure was made inapplicable by any specific provision of the Code.;