JUDGMENT M. Murtuza Husain, J. - The revisionist S. N. Kaushal was convicted under section 11 (2) of the Civil Defence Act by a Magistrate of the 1st Class at Agra on 4121971. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/ for that offence and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for seven days. He preferred an appeal against that conviction before the Sessions Judge Agra who dismissed the revisionist's appeal through his order dated 10th May 1972. It is against this order of the learned Sessions judge that the present revision has been filed. 2. The revisionist runs a mill in Mohalla Jeoni Mandi in the city of Agra. It is said that at 7.30 p.m. on 4121971 the lights of his mill were found on and they were not being covered by any shed. A SubInspector of police noted that contravention of the Civil Defence Act being committed by the revisionist and informed Sri V. K. Gupta, a Magistrate of the 1st Class, who was on duty in the area, about it. The learned Magistrate went to revisionist's mill and saw that he was contravening District Magistrate's order about the restrictions upon lights imposed under air raid precautions scheme. The Magistrate asked the revisionist to put off the lights but he refused to do so and pleaded that because electric current in the area bad become on recently so be could not extinguish the lights. When told that he was contravening an order of the District Magistrate regarding regulation of lights the revisionist replied that he did not care for such orders. A statement of the revisionist was recorded by the learned Magistrate but the revisionist refused to sign it. Taking that statement to be a plea of his guilt the learned Magistrate sentenced him then and there. As has already been remarked above the Sessions Judge also upheld that order. 3. Two illegalities have been pointed out to me in revisionist's trial and conviction and I find force therein. Section 16 of the Civil Defence Act 1968 lays down that no prosecution for any offence punishable under the Act shall be instituted against any person except by or with the consent of the controller or any person authorised by the controller in this behalf. Section 16 of the Civil Defence Act 1968 lays down that no prosecution for any offence punishable under the Act shall be instituted against any person except by or with the consent of the controller or any person authorised by the controller in this behalf. Section 17 of the Act lays down that all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the controller as delegated by the State Government may be exercised by such officer who may be specified in the notification. The learned Magistrate who convicted the appellant was exercising delegated powers of the controller. Under those delegated powers the learned Magistrate was competent to sanction revisionist's prosecution if he was contravening any provision of the Act. He had no powers to take cognizance of any offence which was allegedly being committed by the revisionist and to hold his trial. He could at the most file a complaint against the revisionist before the competent Magistrate and could depose before that Magistrate as an eyewitness. The learned Magistrate committed a clear illegality by himself taking cognizance of the case and importing his own knowledge about the facts of the case in the judgment under revision. Once it is held that the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the case the entire trial of the revisionist stands vitiated. 4. Secondly the learned Magistrate has convicted the revisionist on the basis of revisionist's statement which, in the opinion of the Magistrate amounted to a plea admitting his guilt. That entire statement comprises of three questions and their answers. In the first question the revisionist was asked as to whether or not he was the owner of the mill concerned. In the second question he was asked about the contravention of District Magistrate's order relating to regulation of light. His reply was that till 6 p.m. that day no electric current was supplied to his mill. He got it only at 6 p.m. whereby he was running his mill and he could not close it. In the third question he was reminded of the District Magistrate's order to that effect that be is said to have replied that he did not care for such orders. Taking that entire statement, as it is, I am not prepared to hold that it amounts to admission of his guilt by the appellant. In the third question he was reminded of the District Magistrate's order to that effect that be is said to have replied that he did not care for such orders. Taking that entire statement, as it is, I am not prepared to hold that it amounts to admission of his guilt by the appellant. He never admitted that he was contravening any rules or regulations or was committing any offence. On the other hand he pleaded his justification for keeping the lights on and expressed his disregard of any order to the contrary. By no stretch of imagination such a statement can be said to be a plea of his guilt having been put forward by the accused. 5. Yet another aspect of the above noted statement is that it does not bear revisionist signatures. It is said that when he was asked to sign it he refused to fix his signatures upon it. The present proceedings stood governed by old Cr. P. C. Every statement of the accused under that Code had to be recorded under section 364 which made it obligatory upon the Magistrate recording the statement that after the statement had been explained to the accused his signatures shall be obtained thereon. By refusing to sign a statement made by him the accused concerned might render him liable for any punishment but his statement, which does not bear his signatures apparently suffers from an irregularity and cannot be relied upon as a statement having been made by him unless that irregularity was cured under section 533 Cr. P. C. (old). No evidence contemplated by section 533 Cr. P. C. was taken by the learned Magistrate for curing the irregularity with which the revisionist's statement suffered. That being so it could not be acted upon by the courts below for passing the revisionist's conviction. 6. Under the circumstances I am of the opinion that in the first place the entire trial of the revisionist stands vitiated because the learned Magistrate, who convicted the revisionist had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case against him. Secondly I am of the opinion that the statement of the revisionist relied upon by the court below as a plea of the revisionist about his guilt is in fact not a clear cut confession of revisionist's guilt. Secondly I am of the opinion that the statement of the revisionist relied upon by the court below as a plea of the revisionist about his guilt is in fact not a clear cut confession of revisionist's guilt. Lastly I am of the opinion that the said statement cannot be relied upon because it is not signed by the revisionist and no evidence for curing that irregularity was recorded under section 533 Cr. P. C. The result, therefore, is that the revisionist's conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court are absolutely illegal and have to be set aside. 7. This revision is accordingly allowed and the revisionist's conviction and sentence ordered by the courts below are set aside. Fine, if already paid by him, shall stand refunded to him. Revision allowed.