A joint statement signed by multiple accused persons does not constitute a valid admission of guilt under Section 243 CrPC because it does not reflect the individual statements of each accused person.

In this case, the petitioner along with six others was prosecuted for offences punishable under Ss. 188 and 143 I. P. C. on a complaint filed by the District Magistrate and they were convicted under both the sections on the basis of their admission of the offences and the Magistrate punished them to the maximum sentences under each of the sections, namely, one month's S. I. under S. 188 and six months' R. I. under S. 143 I. P. C. The Magistrate did not give any reason why he awarded the maximum sentences under both the sections nor did he state whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively, which meant that the sentences would run consecutively.

2. After the conviction and sentence, the petitioner was transferred to Nowgong Jail in Assam while the remaining accused were retained in Jail in Manipur itself. Those retained in Manipur filed an appeal to the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1960 and the learned Sessions Judge set aside their conviction and sentence and acquitted them. Now the petitioner has filed this revision against his conviction and sentence and also prayed that the proceedings before the First Class Magistrate may be quashed under S. 5S1-A Cri. P. C.

3. A preliminary objection was taken for the respondent that the judgment of the Magistrate was pronounced on 8-6-1960 and this revision petition was filed on 14-9-1960 and that therefore there was considerable delay in presentation and for this one reason alone this petition should be dismissed. It was also pointed out that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge against his conviction and that therefore this revision petition will not lie under S. 439 (5) Cr. P. C.

But I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the petitioner was transferred to Nowgong Jail in Assam soon after his conviction and thereby prevented from filing an appeal. Further if this application had been filed merely under S. 439 Cr. P. C., I may not have taken much notice of it. But it is also filed under S. 561-A Cr. P. C. If therefore I find that in order to secure the ends of justice it is necessary to interfere under S. 561-A, the delay or the failure to file an appeal cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

4. It was pointed out for the petitioner that he did not admit the offences with which he was charged and further that the so-called admission was not recorded as required under S. 243 Cr. P. C. and that even the recording did not show that he had committed the offences and hence his conviction was wrong.

5. I find that the Magistrate has recorded the plea of all the seven accused persons jointly and taken the signature of all the 7 accused in a joint statement. What is recorded is that it was a fact that the 7 persons went in procession near the Police Check Post at Khwairamband Bazar at 5-15 p.m. in the afternoon on 7-6-1960 raising certain slogans and further that it was known to all of them that there was a prohibitory order passed under Sec. 144, Cri. P. C. by the District Magistrate against holding such processions and raising such slogans within the Imphal Municipal area and 5 miles around and that all of them jointly violated that order with their knowledge and consent.

6. Now Secs. 242 and 243, Cri. P. C. provide that when the accused appears before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him and he shall be asked if he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted and further that if the accused admitted 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.

This will mean that where there are more accused than one the plea of each of the accused should be separately recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him. I am sure that in this case the Magistrate must have asked each of the 7 persons separately after statin