- (1.) THIS case comes on the report of the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated 15th of Jan. 1955.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that one Narain Singh was prosecuted under sec. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. THE case came for hearing before the City Magistrate, Bikaner, on 8th of April, 1954. It was tried as a summons case and, therefore, the Magistrate stated to the accused the particulars of the offence and he was asked if he pleaded guilty or not. THE accused declined to take any plea before the arrival of his counsel. THEreupon, the Magistrate convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20/-or to suffer one month's simple imprisonment. Against the said judgment dated 8th of April, 1954, the accused approached the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner. THE learned Judge has reported that the trial was irregular and, there fore, he has recommended that the conviction should be set aside and the case should be sent back for retrial. In his explanation given by the Magistrate, he has tried to support his judgment by saying that the accused failed to show sufficient cause against his conviction and, therefore, he proceeded to convict him under sec 243 Cr. P. C. It is obvious that the City Magistrate has not properly understood sec. 243 Cr. P. C. That sec. runs as follows - ''243. 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. " It is clear from the provisions of this section that if the accused admits before the Magistrate that he has committed the offence alleged against him, it Magistrate to record is incumbent upon the the admission of the accused in the words u$ed by him, as nearly as it may be possible, and then if the accused fails to show sufficient cause as to why he should not be convicted, it is open to the Magi-strate to convict him of the offence. The learned Magistrate has separate the latter part of the section from the first part and he seems to think that even if the accused does not admit that he has committed an offence, he can be convicted if he fails to show sufficient cause. It was wrong on the part of the Magistrate to read the latter portion of the section separately and distinctly from the earlier part thereof. The latter portion does not come into play so long as the earlier part is not fulfilled. In other words, it is only if the accused admits the commission of the offence alleged against him and if he fails to show sufficient cause, then the Magistrate may proceed to convict him. If he does not make any such admission, then the Magistrate cannot convict him. In that case the Magistrate is bound to proceed to hear the complainant and record his evidence under sec. 242 Cr. P. C. The conviction of the accused in the present case cannot be maintained because he never admitted the commission of the offence and, therefore, the Magistrate was in error in proceeding to convict him under sec. 243 Cr. P. C. The reference is allowed. The conviction of Narain Singh under sec. 112 of the Motor-Vehicles Act is set aside, the case is sent back to the District Magistrate, Bikaner, with directions to transfer it to some other competent Magistrate for retrial. . ;