Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) IN C. C. No. 996 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-IT, Usilampatti, on his admission of guilt, petitioner was convicted under sec. 4 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved petitioner challenged the sustainability of his conviction and consequential sentence in C. A. No. 105 of 1990 before the First Additional Sessions Jude, Madurai. Appellate Court found that documents under sec. 173 (8) Cr. P. C. had been furnished to the petitioner and thereafter he volunteered to admit his guilt. In that view, appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision. ( 2 ) MR. D. Malaichamy, petitioners counsel contended that the learned magistrate had not satisfied himself about furnishing of records to the petitioner and the case file received from the appellate Court does not contain any acknowledgement for receipt of documents by the petitioner before his admission of guilt was recorded. He also pointed out that though the charge sheet refers to statements of witnesses recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. such statements are not available in the case file and obviously ii was apparent that such statements had not been forwarded at all, to the Magistrate. ( 3 ) ON these contentions, I have heard Mr. V. Parthiban, learned Advocate representing the Public Prosecutor. ( 4 ) THE best way to appreciate these contentions would be to peruse the original records. Petitioner was questioned on 18. 6. 1990 alleging that on 17. 6. 1990 at 9 a. m. , near a rice mill at T. Ramanathapuram, he had P9ssessed 50 litres of country arrack and hence as liable to be punished under Sec. 4 (1) (a) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. His plea was asked-for. The reply as the record shows is in one word. Matter in other language. Record does not any where show, that the case records were handed over to the petitioner under his acknowledgement. Thought the learned trial Magistrate has stated in his order that the petitioner had been furnished with all the case records before his plea was recorded. The reply as the record shows is in one word. Matter in other language. Record does not any where show, that the case records were handed over to the petitioner under his acknowledgement. Thought the learned trial Magistrate has stated in his order that the petitioner had been furnished with all the case records before his plea was recorded. So long as there is no acknowledgment in the court records and the petitioner challenges receipt of such documents, it will always be better to afford an opportunity to the accused to have an full-fledged trial, after he is furnished with the documents, on which the prosecution proposed to rely upon to establish the charge against him. ( 5 ) PETITIONERS counsel would be justified in commenting about the non-supply of record to the petitioner from yet another angle also. Though the charge sheet reads that the documents to be supplied to the petitioner would include. Matter in other language such copies have not even been forwarded to the Magistrate, for the case file available before me, does not contain those statements. We cannot also overlook, that the petitioner was arrested at 9 p. m. on 17. 6. 1990 and produced before the Magistrate on the next morning, when he is stated to have pleaded guilty. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done as well. There appears to have been a great haste on the part of the Magistrate to dispose of this calendar case. I am satisfied that the procedure established by law, has not been followed in this case. Conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner shall stand set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the file of Judicial Magistrate -II, Usilamapani for de novo trial in accordance with law. Petitioner shall be furnished with all the records proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution before his plea is recorded. Trial Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, since this is an old case. This criminal revision is allowed to the extent stated above. Revision allowed. Matter remanded for de novo trial.