JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Petitioners, who were convicted u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act on their own admission of guilt and sentenced to RI for six months and fine of Rs. 20/- each, in default to suffer SI for three days more, and such conviction and sentence having been upheld in appeal, have come before this Court in revision. Assailing the judgments it is the submission of Mr. Kar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, that the plea of the accused-Petitioners was accepted by the learned Magistrate on the very day the Petitioners were produced before him without affording them time for deliberation and without giving them a caution regarding the implication of admission of guilt and hence it cannot be said that the Petitioners had voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge. As per the prosecution report the allegations against the Petitioners were that on 28-1-1936 at about 4-33 p.m the Petitioner No. 1 Rabindra Polei was found possessing 4 Kgs. of NDP ganja kept in a biscuit tin inside fertilizer gunny bag and as handing over the same to the Petitioner No. 2 Dibakar Polei which, at that point of time, was seized by the SI of Excise, Hinjilicut. The learned Magistrate, as the order-sheet shows, supplied copy of the prosecution report to the Petitioners and read over and explained the particulars of the offence to them as per the prosecution report. The Petitioners pleaded guilt to the offence. Though the recording of the statements of the Petitioners shows them to be in the form of examination of the accused, yet it shows that the Magistrate had explained to the Petitioners in Oriya the substance of the allegations and the Petitioners to have replied the facts alleged to be true and to have entered a plea of guilt. The statements of both the Petitioners regarding the truth of the allegations and the pleading of guilt were recorded in Oriya. The statements of both the Petitioners regarding the truth of the allegations and the pleading of guilt were recorded in Oriya. Though it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the statements could not have been recorded in question and answer form in the manner of examination of the accused u/s 364 of the old Code which corresponds to Section 313 of the new Code, yet it is seen that substantially the Magistrate had explained the details of the prosecution report to the Petitioners which he recorded in the order-sheet and besides also gave a certificate in the statements recorded of having explained the questions in Oriya language. It is thus clear that the Petitioners had entered their plea of guilt after fully under-standing the allegations as per the prosecution report. 2. As regards the submission that the learned Magistrate should not have recorded a plea of guilt on the very day the accused were made to appear before him and that he should have given a caution to them as to the consequence of admission of guilt, I do not think that Section 252 Code of Criminal Procedure under which the plea of guilt is accepted and conviction is made contemplates any such procedure. Section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure says that when in a case accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate the particulars of offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilt or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. If accused pleads guilty to such question, the Magistrate is required to record the plea as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused and may convict him thereon. It is not contemplated under the Sections for the Magistrate to adjourn the case for any time or to administer a warning. As a matter of fact the very procedure devised under the statute has been followed by the Magistrate. It is not contemplated under the Sections for the Magistrate to adjourn the case for any time or to administer a warning. As a matter of fact the very procedure devised under the statute has been followed by the Magistrate. The question was considered by a decision of this Court in 32 (1966) CLT 396 Hadu Sahu v. The State where Chief Justice Narasimham held that in a summons case, speedy disposal is necessary and that unless the accused asks for adjournment or does not plead guilty, there is no legal bar to proceed with the trial and to dispose it of on his admission of guilt. The decision completely covers the case. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Kar on S. Chinnaswamy Vs. The State, in support of his propositions, but however in view of the decision of this Court in 32 (1966) CLT 396 (supra), it has to be held that the decision of the Madras High Court would have no application. 3. In the result, the revision has no merit and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed