An accused person's answer "it is true" in response to the particulars of the offence stated to him under section 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code amounts to an admission of guilt under section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has been convicted under section 4 (1) (a) of the madras Prohibition Act and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment. The case against him was that his house was searched at about 8-30 P. M. on 13th july, 1954, and a bottle containing six drams of illicit arrack was recovered. A few days thereafter a charge-sheet was laid against him under section 4 (1) (a) of the madras Prohibition Act before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tenali. When the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate, the substance of the accusation was stated to him and he was asked to plead to the charge against him. The question put to him was in the following words :"on 13th July, 1954, at 8-30 P. M. when the Sub-Inspector of Police, Duggirala, searched your house at Tummapudi, a bottle containing 6 drams of arrack was seized from your house. You are charged under section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act. Have you committed the offence ? show cause why you should not be punished. "

( 2 ) THE answer was : "it is true. " on this admission the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above. This was confirmed on appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Guntur. It is that conviction and sentence that are under revision.

( 3 ) IN support of this petition it is argued by Mr. Venugopala Reddy that the plea of the accused would not amount to the admission of guilt within the meaning of section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the Magistrate was not justified in basing the conviction upon the answer of the accused. Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides :- "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. "

( 4 ) IT is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of a specific plea that he had committed the offence complained of, the conviction founded upon the answer is unsustainable. To substantiate this proposition, my attention was drawn to a judgment of Ramaswami, J. , of the Madras High Court in satyamarayana v. State, (1953) 1 M. L. J. 175. The rule stated there is inapplicable to the facts of this case.

( 5 ) IN that ease it was found that there were persons other than the accused living in the house and it is this circumstance that was relied on by the learned Judge to hold that it must be proved that the accused or all the accused persons were aware of the presence of the illicit article and had control of the same. When the only person living in the house as in this case is the accused, no question of showing that he was aware of the presence of the illicit article would arise. Nor does emperor v. Homnarain Sukhailal, A. I. R. 1934 Nag. 65. help the petitioner. There although the accused had said " guilty ", in the next sentence he began to explain the act committed by him which if accepted would clearly indicate that he was not guilty of the offence he was charged with. The accused, who was a driver of a motor lorry, was convicted under sections 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code, for driving along the Nagpur- talegaon load in a lash and negligent manner and causing hurt to one man. In answer to a question put to him under section 243, Criminal Procedure Code, he said :"guilty. Near Patora on Amraoti-Nagpur road while taking a turn I saw about a dozen persons sitting on the road about 50 paces away from my lorry and who on hearing the noise of the engine began to run here and there. I slowed down and applied the brakes but in spite of it the lorry struck one person. I was not driving more than 25 miles per hour. "

( 6 ) THUS the endeavour of the accused was to show that he was not guilty of the offence and that a person was struck in spite of his best efforts to avoid it. In the circumstances of that case, the decision is correct, if I may say so with r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document