Appellant L. Luisei has impugned the judgment and order dated 31/10/77 of the District Magistrate, PHEK, Nagaland in complaint case No. 5(10)/77 under Sections 352/342 of the IPC. The appellant had been convicted and sentenced under both the sections. On 29l 10/77 Mr. Vekhozo Chizo father of Mr. Sedevi filed the complaint case alleging that his son Sedevi was assaulted by the appellant/accused. The District Magistrate took up the case for trial on 31/10/77 purported to be a trial under Cha­pter XX of the Cr. P. C. Perused the original record of the case. It was mandatory on the part of the District Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint, to examine the complainant on oath under the provision of Sec. 200 of the Cr. P. C., to reduces the substance of such exa­mination into writing and be signed by the complainant and thereafter only to issue the process U/S 204 Cr. P. C. if in the opinion of the Magistrate there was sufficient ground to proceed with the case pursuant to the examination of the com­plainant. These mandatory provision of Sec. 200 and 204 had not been complied with by the District Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence on that complaint. The trial is vitia­ted ah-initio. All other proceedings thereafter gone into by the District Magistrate were illegal for default of non-compliance of mandatory provision of Sec. 200 of the Cr. P.C. The District Magistrate also held that the accused/appellant pleaded guilty when the offences had been explained to him. This finding of the District Magistrate was not correct, because the accused/appellant did not make a clean plea of guilt, but only stated that he regretted to what he did. That expression "Was not a plea of guilt to act upon for conviction. A plea of guilt must b: clear and unambiguous. The accused/appellant was an Sobering-Charge of a Police station. He suspected that Mr. Sedevi carrying stolen articles and took him to the police station. However, there was evi­dence that Mr. Sedevi was assaulted (slapped) by the accused. Strict scrutiny as to the compliance of the provisions of law ought to have been followed, because the accused was a public servant. The accused/appellant was an Sobering-Charge of a Police station. He suspected that Mr. Sedevi carrying stolen articles and took him to the police station. However, there was evi­dence that Mr. Sedevi was assaulted (slapped) by the accused. Strict scrutiny as to the compliance of the provisions of law ought to have been followed, because the accused was a public servant. It should be the principle for the trial courts, in the cases of service holders facing trial, as a duty to see that the provisions of law and procedure of trial are strictly com­plied with, so that the findings be encircled legally and the career of a service holder may not be decremented by faulty findings due to faulty procedure. As referred above that the trial was bad ab-initio for non-compliance of Sec. 200 of the Cr. P. C. and so the judgment is liable to be set aside. This appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dt. 31/10/77 are set aside and the accused/appellant Mr. L. Luisei is acquitted of the charges and set at liberty. Send down the records. Inform all concerned.