The mandatory provisions of S. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code require that the Magistrate record the plea of guilty of the accused in his own words. Violation of these provisions vitiates the trial and renders the conviction invalid.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - S. 243 - PLEA OF GUILTY - RECORDING OF - MANDATORY - VIOLATION - VITIATES TRIAL AND RENDERS CONVICTION INVALID.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Mahant of a Hindu religious institution, was convicted under S. 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act for possessing 3,960 grams of ganja without a permit. He pleaded guilty to the charge before the Magistrate, who sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. The appellant appealed to the High Court, alleging that he did not understand the proceedings and that his plea of guilty was not genuine. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate had violated the mandatory provisions of S. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code by not recording the appellant's plea of guilty in his own words. This violation vitiated the trial and rendered the conviction invalid. The Court also held that S. 362(2A) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the Magistrate to make a memorandum of the substance of the examination of the accused, does not apply to cases where the accused pleads guilty, as S. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a special provision that takes precedence over the general provision of S. 362(2A).
Issues: Whether the Magistrate's failure to record the appellant's plea of guilty in his own words violated the mandatory provisions of S. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Magistrate's failure to record the appellant's plea of guilty in his own words violated the mandatory provisions of S. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This violation vitiated the trial and rendered the conviction invalid. The Court also held that S. 362(2A) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the Magistrate to make a memorandum of the substance of the examination of the accused, does not apply to cases where the accused pleads guilty, as S. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a special provision that takes precedence over the general provision of S. 362(2A).
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant, and ordered that the case should go back to the VIII Presidency Magistrate, Madras for being retried and brought to a conclusion in accordance with law.

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J.: This appeal is brought by certificate granted under Art. 134(1)(C) of the Constitution from a judgment of the Madras High Court dated April 29, 1963 in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1963 affirming the conviction of the appellant - Sri Mahant Kaushalya Das under S. 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act and the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The appellant is the hereditary Mahant of Sri Bairaghi Matam - a Hindu Religious and Charitable Institution of a monastic nature. The appellant has been residing in the Matam premises, Elephant Gate, Madras which is a public place of worship. On March 22, 1963 at about 10 a.m. the appellant was arrested by the police and immediately produced before the VIII Presidency Magistrate on the same day on a charge under S. 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act on the allegation that he was in possession of 3,960 grams of ganja concealed in a wooden box in the Matam premises without any permit. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and upon that plea he was convicted by the Magistrate to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50, in default to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1963 to the High Court alleging that his eye sight was very bad and defective, that he was an illiterate person, not acquainted with English or Tamil or with any other South Indian language and that he only knew Hindi as it was spoken in Uttar Pradesh. He also complained that he had no time to consult either his lawyer or his disciples, that the proceedings were rushed through with undue haste, that he did not really plead guilty to the charge and that he never understood the implications of the offence or the proceedings before the Magistrate. The appellant filed an affidavit in support of the appeal before the High Court in regard to these allegations, Kailasam, J. called for a report from the VIII Presidency Magistate with regard to the allegations made in the affidavit of the appellant. On April 23, 1963 the Magistrate submitted a report as follows:

"The particulars of the offence were explained to the accused by the Interpreter. It was translated to accused in Hindi by Sri M. Sukumara Rao, Bench Clerk of this Court who has passed examinations in Hindi. The plea of guilty by the accused was also interpreted to the Court by Sri M. Sukumara Rao. The allegations contained in the affidavit are false". Thereafter Kailasam, J. confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

3. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant put forward the argument that the Magistrate did not comply with the mandatory provisions of S. 243, Criminal Procedure Code that the appellant has been deprived of the substance of a fair trial, and that the conviction of the appellant is legally invalid. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that the necessary ingredients of the offence of possession of the contraband article under S. 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act have not been established as a matter of law.

4. It is necessary to reproduce, at this stage, the charge framed by the VIII Presidency Magistrate against the appellant as well as the judgment pronounced in the case. The charge reads as follows:

"On 22nd March 1963 at about 8 a.m. at No.1 General Muthiah Mudali Street in C-2 limits, the accused was found in possession of 3960 grams of Ganja concealed in wooden box in his Matam premises without any permit. Hence the charge."

The judgment by the Magistrate reads as follows:

"Judgment, dated 22nd March 1963: Accused produced Pleads guilty. Found guilty. The quantity is very huge viz. 3960 grams concealed in a wooden box. I convict and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default to rigorous imprisonment for one month. Confiscate property".

5. Section 4 of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 (Madras Act 10 of 193

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1965 Supreme(SC) 161

The mandatory provisions of S. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code require that the Magistrate record the plea of guilty of the accused in his own words. Violation of these provisions vitiates the trial and renders the conviction invalid.

Cases Referred (1)