Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 242 and 244 CrPC vitiates the trial and the conviction and sentence passed against the accused are unsustainable.

( 1 ) IN this revision case, the learned counsel for the petioners assails the order of the learned Sessions Judge, karimnagar confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Munsif Magistrate, suitanabad in C C. No. 137/1972. The learned Magistrate convicted A-1 to a-3 under Section 323 I. P. C. , and sentenced each of them to pay fine of rs. 25/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment foi ten days. Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence passed against them, the accused filed a revision petition C. R. P. No. 5/1973 before the Sessions judge, Karimnagar contending that the trial is vitiated as the provisions of section 242 Cr P. C. . were not complied with.

( 2 ) THE learned Sessions judge while rejecting the contention observed as follows : it is no doubt true that the accused persons were noc examined under Section 242 Cr. P. C. But they were defended by a counsel, and they have also led evidence in defence. It is not shown that the failure to examine them under section 242 Cr. P. C. , resulted in miscarriage of justice and caused prejudice to them.

( 3 ) SO observing, the learned Sessions judge dismissed the revision petition

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the learned magistrate did not state ro the accused the substance o; the accusation and did not ask the accused if he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted and thus he had not complied with the requirements of Section 242 Cr. P. C. it is also not in dispute that the Magistrate did not hear the accused before the defence evidence was taken as required under Section 244 Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the trial is vitiated on the non-compliance of Sections 242 and 244 Cr. P. C. In support of his contention, he relied upon two decisions of the Mysore High Court. In raghunatha Shenoy v. State of Mysore (I) 1973 M L. J. Reports (Criminal) 340. a contention that the prominent features of the evidence recorded by the Court below were not at all put to the petitioner as required both by the provisions of Sections 242 and 244 Cr. P. C. , and the conviction is, therefore, illegal. The learned judge held that: in the instant case there has been no examination of the petitioner at all with reference to the circumstances appearing against him. If the circumstances appearing in the evidence with reference to the evidence of the witnesses had been brought to the notice of the accused either in generator in a particular way, it was possible for him to have given some explanation. If such an explanation is furnished it was the bounden duty of the Court to have considered the same before holding the accused guilty of the offence charged with. That opportunity had been denied to the petitiner.

( 6 ) SO holding, the learned singlejudge set aside the conviction and sentence.

( 7 ) IN another decision of the same mysore High Court in P. V. Munavalli vs. State (2), A I. R 1967 Mysore 248, the effect of noncompliance of Section 242 Cr. P. C , was considered. The learned singlejudge held that:"the triai of summons case begins when the accused appeared or is brought before the Magistrate. Then the Magistrate should follow the provisions of section 242 Cr. P. C. which are imperative. The procedure prescribed therein should strictly be followed and as soon as the accused person appears or is baought before the Magistrate, the substance of the charge against him must be stated to him and he must be asked to plead. Even at the time the accused was examined Under Section 342 Cr. P. C. , he was not questioned with reference to the circumstances appearing against him. It was incumbent on the Magistrate to see that the provisions of the law were obeyed. If the provisions of law have been disregarded, it has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the accused. "

( 8 ) SO holding, the learned single judge set aside the conviction and sentence.

( 9 ) THE learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Pepsu High court in Mast