Sharma J (delivering oral judgment):

[1] This is an appeal against sentence. The accused having pleaded guilty to the two charges against him under ss 9(1)(b) and 10(2)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance 1952 could not, because of the provisions of s 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code, appeal against his conviction. He has, however, asked the court to exercise its revisionary powers, if necessary, and I see no reason why I should not act under s 325(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

"Charge read over and explained to the accused and understood by him. Pleads guilty. Understands the nature and consequences of his plea. Plea accepted."

should not be the result of sheer wont and habit as if it was an empty and meaningless ritual which the pen irresistibly begins to perform and complete once the magic words "I plead guilty" are uttered by the accused. The taking down of a plea of guilty is a solemn and serious act and the magistrates should devote some time and active thought before they decide to accept that plea and base a conviction thereon.

[4] In the case of Christopher Ingleson [1914] 11 Cr App R 21 the accused was convicted of horse stealing on his plea of guilty. He handed up a statement which stated that he did not know that the horses were stolen. Lord Coleridge J in his judgment said:

"He pleaded guilty and handed up a statement to the recorder which, if believed, was a complete exculpation: it ended with the words, 'I am guilty of taking the horses not knowing that they were stolen.' If the recorder read that it was clearly his duty to explain to the prisoner that his proper course was to plead not guilty, and to have such a plea entered. We presume the recorder did not read to the end of the statement. It is most important that a prisoner should not be caught by a phrase like 'guilty'; clearly he meant that he had had no felonious intent."

[5] Again in the case of Alfred Golathan [1915] 11 Cr App R 79, Reading LCJ said:

"It appears to be quite plain from reading the shorthand note that at the most he admitted entering the premises, but added that he did not do so for the purpose of stealing. That unfortunately was taken as a plea of guilty, and he was thereupon sentenced to a long term of penal servitude.... In our view this man's plea was not a plea of guilty at all, and no man is to be convicted on a plea which is ambiguous. If there is any ambiguity it is to be taken as a plea of not guilty, and evidence given against him in the ordinary course. He must not be taken to have admitted his guilt unless he does so in unmistakeable terms."

[6] In Malacca Criminal Revision No 4 of 1970, I had occasion to say:

1

"I like to add that when an accused person pleads guilty it is the duty of the learned magistrate to carefully consider wheth