CHITTIBOMMA RAKKESU Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petitioner has been convicted under section 4 (1) (a) of the
Madras Prohibition Act and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment.
The case against him was that his house was searched at about 8-30 P.M. on 13th
July, 1954, and a bottle containing six drams of illicit arrack was recovered. A few
days thereafter a charge-sheet was laid against him under section 4(1) (a) of the
Madras Prohibition Act before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tenali.
When the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate, the substance of the
accusation was stated to him and he was asked to plead to the charge against him.
The question put to him was in the following words :
"On 13th July, 1954, at 8-30 P.M. when the Sub-Inspector of Police, Duggirala, searched your
house at Tummapudi, a bottle containing 6 drams of arrack was seized from your house. You are
charged under section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act. Have you committed the offence ?
Show cause why you should not be punished."
(2.)The answer was :
"It is true."
On this admission the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
This was confirmed on appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Guntur. It is
that conviction and sentence that are under revision.
(3.)In support of this petition it is argued by Mr. Venugopala Reddy that the plea
of the accused would not amount to the admission of guilt within the meaning of
section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the Magistrate was not
justified in basing the conviction upon the answer of the accused.
Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides :-
"If the accused admits that he has committed the offence of which he is accused, his admission
shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him ; and, if he shows no sufficient
cause why he should not be convicted, the Magistrate may convict him accordingly."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.