The provisions of sections 242 and 243 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and a violation of these provisions vitiates the trial and renders the conviction legally invalid.

1. THIS Rule is against an order dated the 15th April, 1968 passed by Shri S. N. Ghosh, Presidency Magistrate, 15th court, Calcutta convicting the accused-petitioner under section 52 read with section 111 of the By-Laws for the Port of Calcutta upon his plea of guilty and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 20/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days.

2. THE facts can be put in a short compass. On or about the 11th April, 1958, at about 10 p. m. while the accused petitioner was moving with a tin of mobil Oil and some Fuel Oil in a small tin, he was arrested and the present proceedings under section 52 read with section 111 of the Port By-Laws was started. The accused-petitioner was ultimately placed on his trial before Shri S. N. Ghosh, Presidency magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta under section 52/111 of the By-Laws for the Port of calcutta. On 15th April, 1968, when the presidency Magistrate put to him under section 242 of the Code of Criminal procedure the particulars an of the offence, the accused pleaded guilty. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as mentioned above by the trying Magistrate. The said order of conviction has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present Rule.

Mr. Gopal Chandra chakraborty, Counsel (appearing with Mr. Rathindra Naih Bhadur, Advocate) appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made a two-fold submission. Mr. Chakraborty has contended in the first place that in view of the fact that the accused-petitioner had the requisite cash-memo in his possession, the order of conviction and sentence has been grossly improper. The second contention of Mr. Chakraborty is that there has been a non-conformance to the mendatory provision of sections 242 and 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as neither the particulars of the offence were explained to the accused-petitioner nor was his purported admission recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused-petitioner and, therefore, the resultant order of conviction and sentence is bad in law and improper. Mr. Amiya Lal chatterjee, Advocate (with Mr. Bibhuti Roy, advocate) appearing on behalf of the opposite-party No. 2, the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, has submitted in the first place that the first contention of Mr. Chakraborty is unwarranted in view of the ultimate plea that the accused had taken, in the court below, viz., the plea of guilty. With regard to the Second contention of Mr. Chakraborty, Mr. Chatterjee has joined issue and has submitted in that context that there has been a due compliance with the provisions of sections 242 and 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the plea of the accused has been correctly taken down. Mr. Sudhindra Kumar palit, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the questions of the merit of the charge does not at all arise in the instant case. With regard to the point of law taken by Mr. Chakraborty as to the non-conformance to the mandatory provisions of sections 242 and. 243 Cr. P. C. Mr. Palit has submitted in the first place that in view of the explanation that has been submitted by the Presidency Magistrate, the averments made to the contrary on behalf of the accused-petitioner are not maintainable. Mr. Palit has further submitted that the trial in question haw been a summary trial and in view of the provisions of section 263 of the Code of criminal Procedure the substance of the plea by the accused as taken down by the Presidency Magistrate is a substantial conformance to the provisions of law.

3. UPON ultimate analysis, as has been contended by Mr. Chakraborty, the point involved is a point of law as to whether there has been a conformance to the provision of sections 242 and 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have heard the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel appealing on behalf of the different parties and I have also gone through the records. So far as the contention of Mr. Chakraberty is conce