ORDER.- In this petition, the petitioner challenges the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentences passed on him by the Munsiff-Magis:rate, Tiptur, in C.C. No. 229 of 1970, and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1970. 2. The prosecution case as available in column No. 7 of the charge-sheet is that at about 6-30 a.m. on 20th February, 1970, the Excise Inspector, Tiptur Range, Tiptur, along with panchayatdars, raided the dwelling house of the petitioner at Mavinakere village and found incriminating articles as detailed in the search list and mentioned in column No. 2 of the charge-sheet and, therefore, the petitioner had committed an offence under section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965, (to be hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ in the course of this order). 3. When the petitioner was put up before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the case applying the provisions of Chapter XX of the Criminal Procedure Code and dealt with the case in a summary manner. Column No. 8 of the record in summary non-appealable cases maintained by the learned Magistrate, discloses that the offence complained of was put to the petitioner as follows as required by section 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code: “That on 20th February, 1970, at about 6-30 a.m. the accused noted in column No. 5 was found in illegal possession of incriminating articles as detailed in the charge-sheet when searched by the Excise Inspector, Tiptur Range, Tiptur, before the panchayatdars in his dwelling house at Mavinakere village, Turuvekere taluk after observing all formalities and the same was under a search list. Thereby the accused has committed an offence under section 34 of M.E. Act, 1965, and punishable after the same. What have you got to say? In column No. 11, it is recorded in Kannada that the petitioner stated (Kattumadiddene).” 4. The learned Magistrate accepted this say as plea of guilty and convicted the petitioner for an offence under section 34 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. 5. The learned Magistrate accepted this say as plea of guilty and convicted the petitioner for an offence under section 34 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. 5. Section 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that when the accused appears or is brought 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 that it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. It is by now well settled that while stating the particulars of the offence, i.e., the substance of the accusation to the accused, mere reading of the contents of the charge-sheet would not suffice. Stating of substance of the accusation to an accused under section 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be regarded as a mere formality. It is essential that the accused is clearly told in so many words the essential particulars of the offences levelled against him. All the necessary facts disclosing the ingredients of an offence levelled against a particular accused are to be clearly stated and explained to an accused while stating the substance of the accusation to accusation to such an accused. A reading of the substance of the accusation excerpted above, that the learned Magistrate asked the accused to refer to the charge-sheet in order to ascertain what were the incriminating articles that were alleged to have been seized from his possession. A reading of the substance of the accusation does not at all, in my opinion, make out an offence under section 34 of the Act. Hence, what is stated by the petitioner cannot be regarded as plea of guilty and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Munsiff-Magis-trate, Tiptur, in C.C. No. 229 of 1970, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed; Petitioner acquitted.