Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by Mr. Mohammad Rafique, Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi.
(2.) PANJUMAL was convicted of an offence under sec. 130 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act by the court of the City Magistrate, Bundi, and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30/-, on the 5th of May 1953. A revision was filed by the accused against the order of conviction to court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, who has made this reference by his order dated the 19th June 1953. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the City Magistrate failed to faithfully follow the provisions of sec. 242 Cr. P. C. inasmuch as he failed to State the particulars of the offence to the accused at the commencement of the trial. Reliance has been placed on the observations appearing in the judgments of the following cases - Upendranath Paul vs. Bankim Chatterjee (l), Express Dairy Ltd. vs. Corporation of Calcutta (2), Sukhdeo Singh vs. State (3 ). It has been recommended that the judgment of the learned City Magistrate should be set aside and a fresh trial should be ordered. In his explanation the City Magis-trate has stated that he apprised the accused of the particulars of the accusation and asked him if he had any cause to show why he should not be convicted. In his record of the proceedings the learned City Magistrate has noted that he made the accused understand the offence and asked him to show cause against it and the accused thereupon admitted the offence and begged pardon, and he further admitted that he has purchased the cabin from Nandkishore and that he had failed to obtain a lease of the land from the Municipality. It is a question of fact whether the Magistrate stated particulars of the offence to the accused at the commencement of the trial and from the explanation of the City Magistrate it appears that he did state the particulars of the offence to the accused and recorded his plea as required by the law. It cannot, therefore, be held, as the learned Additional Sessions Judge thinks, that the Magistrate had disregarded the provisions of sec. 242 Cr. P. C. Moreover, in the plea of the accused the Magistrate has written the facts which were admitted by the accused and which formed basis of the offence for which he was going to be tried. A perusal of the record of the plea makes it abundantly clear that the particulars of offence must have been communicated to the accused before the pleaded guilty. The decisions referred to in the judgement of the learned Additional Session Judge have, therefore, on application to this case. The record of proceedings of the court of the City Magistrate did not contain the particulars of the offence that were communicated to the accused and that is why the learned additional Session Judge has come to the conclusion that the provision of sec. 242 Cr. P. C. were not complied with by the City Magistrate. It may be observed here that it is not very necessary that the Magistrate should make a full record of what he had stated to the accused in explaining the particulars of the offence and if the record of the proceedings is not in full details on this point this will not go to affect the legality of the trial. It is sufficient that the proceedings show that the Magistrate had orally explained to the accused what the offence was and had asked him to show cause. The record in the present case is very clear on this point and there can be no doubt that the Magistrate stated to the accused the particulars of the offence and asked him to show cause why he should not be convicted. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to interfere with the order of the City Magistrate. This reference is rejected. . ;