Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1960 DIGILAW 241 (ALL)

State v. A. M. Dass

1960-09-09

DHAVAN, OAK

body1960
JUDGMENT Oak, J. - This is an appeal against an order of acquittal. A.M. Das was prosecuted on the following allegations: 2. The accused is the proprietor of a cinema house at Mahoba. Under the rules an owner of a cinema house is prohibited from seating visitors on the floor. In spite of that prohibition, the accused seated visitors in the cinema house at Mahoba on the floor on three successive days in November, 1957. The accused was therefore prosecuted u/s 8 of the UP Cinema's (Regulation) Act, 1955 read with R.l(vi) of the UP Cinematograph Rules, 1951. 3. When the accused was examined by the learned Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the accused admitted that under certain circumstances he seated visitors on the floor. The accused gave an explanation why it became necessary to seat visitors on the floor. The accused stated that he had another cinema house at Charkbari. It became necessary to remove furniture from Mahoba to Charkbari. That was why the visitors had to sit on the floor at the cinema house at Mahoba. The learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the accused. The accused was convicted, and was fined Rs. 200. 4. A.M. Das appealed against the order of conviction. The appeal was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge of Hamirpur. The accused was acquitted on 20-3-59. The State of UP has filed the present appeal against the order of acquittal dated 20-3-1959. 5. The trial court convicted the accused for a breach of R. 14(vi) of the UP Cinematograph Rules, 1951. The relevant portion of Cl. (vi) of R. 14 of the UP Cinematograph Rules, 1951 states:- Seating on the floor will not be allowed in permanent buildings. We have some doubt about the validity of this provision in R. 14 of the UP Cinematograph Rules, 1951. But since we find that the order of acquittal must be upheld for another reason, we do not consider it necessary to give a considered opinion as regards the validity of the provision in question. 6. This was a summons case. The learned Magistrate rightly followed the procedure prescribed in Ch. XX CrPC. u/s 242, Code of Criminal Procedure the substance of the accusation has to be stated to the accused. We take it that Section 242, Code of Criminal Procedure was duly complied with by the trial court. 6. This was a summons case. The learned Magistrate rightly followed the procedure prescribed in Ch. XX CrPC. u/s 242, Code of Criminal Procedure the substance of the accusation has to be stated to the accused. We take it that Section 242, Code of Criminal Procedure was duly complied with by the trial court. Then follows Section 243. Section 243, Code of Criminal Procedure state:- 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. The learned Magistrate appears to have acted u/s 243, Code of Criminal Procedure for convicting the accused. For, he observed in his judgment that the accused admitted his guilt. 7. However, on going through the statement made by the accused, we do not find any such admission of guilt. It is true that the accused conceded that he did seat visitors on the floor. But he was careful to protest that he did so under certain circumstances. He gave a lengthy explanation as to his reason for so acting At this stage we are not concerned with the question whether the explanation offered by the accused was satisfactory or not. We merely note that it is not correct to say that the accused pleaded guilty. All that the accused said was that he seated guests on the floor for various reasons. When the statement of the accused is read as a whole, the statement cannot be treated as a plea of guilt. Section 243, Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Magistrate to convict the accused on his plea, if the accused admits the commission of the offence alleged. This is the condition to be fulfilled for disposing of a case u/s 243, CrPC. Section 243. Code of Criminal Procedure further lays down that even if the accused admits the commission of the offence, it is open to the accused to show cause. The Magistrate may record a conviction only if the accused shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted. 8. On going through the statement made by the accused, it is clear that he was anxious to show cause why he should not be convicted. The Magistrate may record a conviction only if the accused shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted. 8. On going through the statement made by the accused, it is clear that he was anxious to show cause why he should not be convicted. The record of the trial court shows that, the accused was examined on 3-6-58. After recording the statement of the accused the trial court immediately proceeded to write out its judgment. No question appears to have been put to the accused enquiring whether he proposed to produce any evidence in support of the explanation offered by him. 9. We thus find from the record that in the first place, the accused did not admit the commission of an offence. Secondly, the accused wanted to show cause against the proposed conviction. Nonetheless, the Magistrate decided to record a conviction. The trial court did not follow the procedure prescribed by Ch. XX CrPC. Under the circumstances which obtained in this case, it was not open to the learned Magistrate to record a conviction u/s 243, CrPC. He was bound to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 244 Code of Criminal Procedure and the subsequent sections in the Code. 10. Since the accused did not get a proper trial before the learned Magistrate the order of conviction recorded by the Magistrate cannot be allowed to stand. The learned Deputy Government Advocate suggested that a retrial may be ordered. The alleged offence was committed nearly three years ago. Moreover the offence appears to be of technical nature. Under the circumstances we do not consider it expedient to order a retrial. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, may be allowed to stand. 11. The appeal is dismissed.