- (1.) THESE are the fourteen references submitted by learned Additional District Magistrate, Nagaur, recommending that the orders of the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur, convicting Ram Kishan and thirteen other accused persons of the offence under sec. 34, Police Act, be set aside and the cases should be remitted to the original court for fresh trial according to law. As common question of law arises in all these 14 references, they can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) THE common features of the cases are that on June 4, 1968, Nagaur Police organised a raid with a view to remove certain encroachments on the public thoroughfare in Nagaur City. This step was taken under S. 34 of the Police Act. Ram Kishan and 13 others were found to have made encroachments on the public road. In respect of intrusion of each of the 14 accused persons the police prepared a memo on the spot and submitted the same to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur. That very day the Magistrate read out the memo prepared by the police to the accused concerned and on his admission imposed a certain amount of fine on him. All the fourteen accused persons felt aggrieved by the orders of their convictions and sentences and they filed revision petitions in the court of the Additional District Magistrate, Nagaur. On receipt of revision applications, that court ordered suspension of the sentences and submitted these references to this court for the aforesaid purpose, on the ground that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of secs. 242 and 243, Cr. P. C. It is first to be seen whether or not the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur, complied with the provisions of S. 243, Cr. P. C. , and the accused have been deprived of the substance of fair trials, as a result of which their convictions are legally invalid. It is necessary to reproduce at this stage by way of illustration the charge framed by the Magistrate against the accused Poonam Chand as also the judgment produced in the case. The charge reads as under: "a 'hud' has been erected in front of his shop on the public thoroughfare and glass and wooden almirahs have been installed thereon. This 'hud' adjoins the road and obstructs general traffic. " The judgment of the Court is in the terms following: - "offence was read over and explained to the accused, who admits the guilt, and under S. 34 of the Police Act he is fined Rs. 40/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days. Language used in respect of the charges and judgments in other cases is almost identical. S. 34, Police Act, is in the terms following: - "any person who, on any road or in any open place or street or thorough-fare within the limits of any town to which this shall be specifically extended by the State Government commits any of the following offences, to the obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage of the residents or passengers shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees or to imprisonment with or without hard labour not exceeding eight days; and it shall be lawful for any police-officer to take into custody, without a warrant any person who within his view commits any of such offences, namely : FIRST - Any person who slaughters any cattle or cleans any carcass; any person who rides or drives any cattle recklessly or furiously, or trains or breaks any horse or other cattle; SECOND - Any person who want only or cruelly beats, abuses or tortures any animal; THIRD - Any person who keeps any cattle or conveyance of any kind standing longer than is required for loading or unloading or for taking up or setting down passengers, or who leaves any conveyance in such a manner as to cause inconvenience or danger to the public; FOURTH - Any person who exposes any goods for sale; FIFTH - Any person who throws or lays down any dirt, filth, rubbish or any stones or building material; or who constructs any cowshed, stable or the like or who causes any offensive matter to run from any house, factory, dung-heap or the like; SIXTH - Any person who is found drunk or riotous or who is incapable of taking care of himself; SEVENTH - Any person who wilfully and indecently exposes his person, or any offensive deformity of disease, or commits nuisance by easing himself, or by bathing or washing in any tank or reservoir not being a place set apart for that purpose; EIGHT - Any person who neglects to fence in or duly to protect any well, tank or other dangerous place or structure. " Offence under sec. 34 of the Police Act is triable as a summons case under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It cannot be disputed in the present cases that there have been violation by the Magistrate of the requirements of sec. 243, Cr. P. C. which states: "if the accused admits that he has committed the offences 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. " It is manifest from the record that the admissions of the accused have not been recorded "as nearly as possible in the words used by them", as required by sec. 243, Cr. P. G. It is correct that the Magistrate in his judgment has said that the accused pleads guilty, but the record contains no indication whatsoever as to what exactly the accused admitted before the Magistrate. The requirements of sec. 243, Criminal Procedure Code, are mandatory in nature, Their violation vitiates the trial and renders the conviction invalid. In other words, the requirements of sec. 243, Cr. P. C. , are not a mere empty formality. They are intended to secure proper administration of justice. Magistrates have to remember that a conviction on admission is not final. It is open to revision or appeal, as the case may be, and the superior court has to be satisfied that what was to be an admission was really so and for that purpose the admission must be recorded, as far as possible in the accused's own words. A mere record that the accused pleads guilty without recording his statement in his own words is only a record of the Magistrate's conclusion from a statement. It deprives the superior court of examining the validity of the conclusion. It is, therefore, necessary that the terms of sec. 243, Cr. P. C. are strictly complied with. As the right of revision or appeal depends upon the circumstance whether the accused pleaded guilty or not, and it is for this reasons that the legislature provided that the exact words used by the accused in his plea of guilty should as nearly as possible be recorded in his own language in order to prevent any mistake or misapprehension. This was the view of the Madras High Court in Queen Empress vs. Erugudu (1 ). In that case Shephard and Handley, JJ. observed: "the admission of the accused persons are directed by sec. 243 to be recorded and this also should be done at once, and the words used in the admissions should be stated as nearly as possible. Here again the procedure of the Deputy Magistrate appears to have been defective, for he does not appear to have made any records of the admissions at the time, and the record he did ultimately make, does not profess to state the words of the admissions and does not show what was admitted. From the record it is impossible to say whether the accused admitted only the acts or omissions with which they were charged, or admitted them with all the accompanying circumstances necessary to constitute their acts or omissions offences. This may have led to a most serious miscarriage of justice. In our opinion these errors and irregularities of procedure are sufficiently serious to invalidate the proceedings of the Deputy Magistrate, and are not such as we can overlook even to secure the very desirable end of the improvement of the sanitary condition of Adnoni. " The same view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Shailabala Dasee vs. Emperor (2 ). In that case Lort Williams and Jack, JJ. held: "in cases where an accused person makes some statement during the course of the trial which is interpreted as a plea of guilty, the court should record the exact words used, and in the language used. " The Allahabad High Court in Mukandilal vs. State (3) lay down: "by not recording the admission of the accused as nearly as may be in his own words but by merely recording his own (Magistrate's) conclusion from that statement in the words "pleads guilty", the Magistrate deprives the superior Court from examining the validity of his conclusion. The law does not allow him to do so. " Sec. 243, Cr. P. C. , also received consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kaushalya Das vs. State of Madras (4j and His Lordship Ramaswarni J. , speaking for the Court, said : "the requirements of Sec. 243 are mandatory in character and a violation of these provisions vitiates the trial and renders the conviction invalid. " In my opinion, the views expressed by the above High Courts correctly laid down the law on the point that while recording the admission of the accused the trial court should see that the accused understood the ingredients of the offence and that he admitted all these ingredients. That view has also been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Kaushalyadas's case (supra ). In this case the trial court has simply said that the offence was read over and explained to the accused and he admitted the guilt. This is not in conformity with the provisions of sec 243, Cr. P. C. The rule embodied in sec. 243, Cr. P. C. that the admission of the accused shall be recorded "as nearly as possible in his words" is a very salutary rule, which is necessary for the protection of the accused and proper administration of justice. Its violation renders trials legally invalid. As these references can be disposed of on the interpretation of sec. 243, Cr. P. C. it is hardly necessary to deal with the other points raised by the Additional District Magistrate, Nagaur, in his references. For these reasons, I accept the references, set aside the conviction and the sentences imposed on all the fourteen accused persons and direct that the cases should go back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur, for being retried and to arrive at conclusions in accordance with law. .;