ORDER P.R. Sharma, J. 1. This case comes up before me on a report made u/s 438 Cr. P. C. by the First Addl. Sessions judge, Morena. 2. The facts of the case are that on checking truck No.M.B.B/1323 on 10-3-1959 Shri Krishnapalsingh, Station House Officer Jaura found its driver Shiv Narayan in a state of intoxication. The truck was also found to be overloaded. The accused on being asked by the Sub-Inspector to stop his truck on the side of the road, drove it away in the direction of Jaura, 3. The accused was, on the facts stated above, prosecuted for offences under sections 117, 72/124 and Sec. 87/112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. On the particulars of the offences being explained to the accused, he admitted only the fact that the truck was overloaded. The case was thereupon fixed for the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be recorded on 28-3-1960. On that day none of the prosecution witnesses were present. But the accused presented an application to the Court stating that he was willing to admit his guilt with a request that the Court should pronounce judgment in the case on that very day. In response to this offer the learned Magistrate examined the accused u/s 342 Cr. P. C., convicted him only under Sec. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced in to pay a fine of Rs. 5/-. The learned Magistrate, without recording any evidence, disbelieved the prosecution version about the truck being overloaded. Even though the accused admitted before him that he was under the influence of drink, the learned Magistrate did not convict him u/s 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate was obviously illegal. Where there is no admission by the accused and conviction thereon u/s 243 Cr. P. C., the Magistrate is bound to hear the case and take the evidence adduced by both parties. It is not open to the Magistrate under such circumstances to obtain a further plea of guilty from the accused (See-Lalji, A.I.R. 1928 Cal. 243); or to acquit him without recording the prosecution evidence (See Ali Hussain I L R 54 All. 416; and Vardarajalu, 33 cri. L. J. 274). 6. The recommendation made by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, is, therefore, accepted. 243); or to acquit him without recording the prosecution evidence (See Ali Hussain I L R 54 All. 416; and Vardarajalu, 33 cri. L. J. 274). 6. The recommendation made by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, is, therefore, accepted. The judgment of the trial Court is set aside and the case is remanded with a direction that the learned Magistrate shall record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the defence, if any, and thereafter proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. 7. The attention of the learned Magistrate is also directed to the desirability of a deter-rant sentence being imposed on drivers, who are proved to be in a state of intoxication at the time when they are driving a heavy vehicle like a truck. Considerations of public safety require that offenders of this type, when proved to be guilty, are awarded condign punishment.