Judgment This in effect is a reference under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sessions Judge, Bidar, arising out of a prosecution against five persons in respect of offences punishable under sections 79 and 80 of the Mysore Police Act, 1963. Accused 1 to 4 were charged with the offence of gaming in a common gaming house punishable under section 80 of the Act. Accused 5 was charged with an offence of Keeping a common gaming house punishable under section 79 (a). On 28th October, 1968 the Magistrate recorded, the plea of the accused under section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, on the basis of their plea, which in the opinion of the Magistrate was a plea of guilty, he sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 5 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five days. These convictions produced two revision petitions before the Sessions Judge, one of which was presented by the State and the other by all the accused. The complaint made by the State was that there was disobedience to the provisions of sections 79 and 80 of the Mysore Police Act which made a sentence of imprisonment and fine obligatory, while the contention raised by the accused was that the offences had not been proved. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition presented by the accused, but made a reference to this Court under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that this Court could impose a proper sentence. It is clear from sections 79 and 80 of the Mysore Police Act that if the Magistrate convicted the accused with the offences with which they were charged, a sentence of imprisonment which shall not be less than three months and a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 500 was imperative, even for a first offence in respect of an offence punishable under section 79 of the Act. Similarly, for the offence under section 80, imprisonment which shall not be less than one month and fine which shall not be less than Rs. 200 was likewise imperative even for a first offence. So the Sessions Judge was right in reaching the conclusion that if it was otherwise possible for this Court to do so, there should be a proper enhancement of the sentence. 200 was likewise imperative even for a first offence. So the Sessions Judge was right in reaching the conclusion that if it was otherwise possible for this Court to do so, there should be a proper enhancement of the sentence. But, it is seen that this is not a case in which I could properly enhance the sentence, and I say so for the reason that the recording of the plea by the Magistrate under section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not in accordance with law. That section requires the Magistrate to state to each of the five accused the particulars of the offence with which he was charged and to ask him to show cause why he should not be convicted. But the Magistrate adopted what appears to me to be somewhat curious procedure. He put a common question to all the five accused, and that question asked all the five why they should not be convicted under section 79 and 80 of the Police Act. That single question which was put to all the five accused jointly reads: “It is alleged that on 29th June, 1968, at about 14-10 hrs. A-1 to A-4 were found playing the cards stake called Manna in a common gaming house and A-5 was running the said common gaming house. On the basis of this allegation you are required to show cause as to why you should not be convicted for the offence punishable under section 79 (a) and 80 of the Mysore Police Act.” There is more than one infirmity and imperfection in the question formulated by the Magistrate. The first is that all the five accused were jointly interrogated through a single question which is not permissible under section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when there is a plurality of accused. It is clear from the provisions of section 242 that when there is more than one accused the plea of each accused should be recorded separately and so there should be an independent interrogation of each one of them. It is only then that the plea of the accused with respect to the offence with which he is charged could be properly brought on record and not otherwise. It is only then that the plea of the accused with respect to the offence with which he is charged could be properly brought on record and not otherwise. A single question jointly put to more than one accused is productive of confusion and the plea recorded by the accused when they are so questioned is not plea on the basis of which a conviction is possible if it is a plea of guilty. The other mistake committed by the Magistrate was the omission to state the particulars of the offence with which accused 1 to 4 were charged, with sufficient precision. Accused 1 to 4 were charged with an offence of gaming in a common gaming house, and that offence is committed as can be seen from section 80 of the Police Act in a case where the accused is found in any common gaming house either gaming or he is present for the purpose of gaming. Gaming is defined by section 2 (7) of the Act which says that although ‘gaming’ does not include a lottery, it includes all forms of wagering or betting in connection with any game of chance, and so it was necessary for the Magistrate to state to accused 1 to 4 that the offence with which they were charged was that they were found in a common gaming house gaming. In other words, what he should have told accused 1 to 4 was that they were found wagering or hetting in a game of chance. But all that the Magistrate told accused 1 to 4 was that they were playing “the cards stake called Manna”. He did not explain to them that when they did so, they were gaming and that’ Manna ‘as he described it was a game of chance. And unless he told accused 1 to 4 that they were found gaming or proceeded further to tell them that the game which they were playing was a game of chance, the statement of the particulars of the offence under section 242 would be deficient and the plea even one of guilty, would not be a plea of guilty with respect to the offence punishable under section 80 of the Police Act. It is not enough for the Magistrate to tell accused 1 to 4 that they were playing ‘Manna’. It is not enough for the Magistrate to tell accused 1 to 4 that they were playing ‘Manna’. What he was further bound to tell them was that that game was a game of chance, hut he did not. The third serious defect in the interrogation made by the Magistrate was that he did not ask accused 1 to 4 to show cause why they should not be convicted of an offence under section 80 , and accused 5 to show cause why he should not be convicted under section 79. Although accused 1 to 4 were not charged with any offence punishable under section 79 and although accused 5 was not charged with an offence under section 80 , the Magistrate asked all the five accused to show cause why all of them should not be convicted under sections 79 and 80. That being so, although it is indisputable that had the plea been recorded properly the sentence imposed on the accused by the Magistrate would clearly transgress the imperative provisions of sections 79 and 80 of the Police Act, this is not a case in which I should feel justified in disturbing the order made by the Magistrate. It is enough to point out to the Magistrate the mistake committed by him including the mistake with respect to the selection of the sentence, and it is not necessary for me to direct the Magistrate to proceed further with respect to this matter at this distance of time. I decide the reference accordingly. S.V.S. ----- Orders accordingly.