Judgment : The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.97 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate at Ambattur. Totally, there were two accused viz., the present revision petitioner and one Vembuli. The case against this revision petitioner was split up as he was absconding and was taken on file in C.C.No.97 of 1992. The learned trial Magistrate, by judgment, dated 11.8.1994 convicted the accused, on his plea of guilty, for offences under Secs.457(2) and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to under rigorous imprisonment for four months for each of the offence. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and no fine was imposed. This judgment of conviction is challenged in this revisions on so many grounds. 2. I perused the records show that on 11.8.1994 the counsel for the accused filed a memo admitting the guilt and praying for the release of the accused under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Another petition on the same day was also filed before the lower court to cell for a report from the Probationary Officer. Both these memos are signed by the same counsel who had entered appearance for the accused, the records also show another memo dated 11.8.1994 signed by the very same counsel withdrawing the memo pleading guilty the petition filed to call for a report from the Probationary Officer. In the petition, it is stated that the accused is not admitting the offence and he is contesting the case. Another petition, dated 11.8.1994 also came to be filed before the Magistrate, which is written in Tamil and signed by the accused himself. In that petition, the accused had stated that he did not know what he pleaded and that he is innocent. He made it clear that he had not committed the offence and that he wanted to contest the case. It is also stated therein that he has decided to change his counsel, the learned Magistrate also examined the accused under Sec.281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 11.8.1994 itself. The first question was whether the accused had received the records, the second question was about the theft committed on 4.8.1989 and the third question was whether he was guilty of the offences alleged. The answers that appear from the record is that the accused answered in the affirmative. This record also shows that the accused refused to sign. The first question was whether the accused had received the records, the second question was about the theft committed on 4.8.1989 and the third question was whether he was guilty of the offences alleged. The answers that appear from the record is that the accused answered in the affirmative. This record also shows that the accused refused to sign. Under record of examination shall be signed by the accused and thereafter by the Magistrate. Thought this record of examination is signed by the Magistrate, the accused had not signed in it and therefore since the mandatory requirement of sub-Sec.(5) of Sec.281 of the Code had not been complied with. This record of evidence is not worth the paper on which it is written. Therefore, under these circumstances, the court was left with two sets of records viz., memos admitting the guilt and the memos withdrawing the plea of guilt. 3. The learned trial Magistrate however had not gone into the memos filed by the counsel as well as by the accused withdrawing the plea of guilt thereby expressing their intention to contest. The learned Magistrate however proceeded to state in his order that the accused though admitted his guilt, refused to sign in the record of his examination referred to above. Proceeding on the basis that there is a memo on record admitting the plea of guilt, the Magistrate proceeded to convict the accused as referred to above. This way of disposal does not appeal to be just and proper. Admittedly, though the accused originally pleaded guilty through his counsel by filing a memo, which memo had not been signed by the accused himself, yet the accused at a later point of time filed a memo signed by him withdrawing his plea of guilt and expressing his petition for withdrawing the memo containing the plea of guilt. All these had happened on 11.8.1994. Judicial discretion on the facts of this case should have been to allow the accused to contest the case and bring it to a logical end. However the learned Magistrate appears to interested in giving a post-haste disposal of the case which had resulted in this revision. Even assuming for a moment that the accused had admitted his guilt yet, the records do not show that the plea of guilt was withdrawn after the judgment was pronounced. However the learned Magistrate appears to interested in giving a post-haste disposal of the case which had resulted in this revision. Even assuming for a moment that the accused had admitted his guilt yet, the records do not show that the plea of guilt was withdrawn after the judgment was pronounced. In that event, the memos filed by the accused himself and his counsel for withdrawing the plea of guilt may not be of any use at all. However as this position is not clear, the benefit of the same should be definitely given to the accused since his personal liberty is involved. 4. Under those circumstances, I am inclined to allow this revision setting aside the judgment dated 11.8.1994 in C.C.No.97 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and remand the case to the trial court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. The learned trial Magistrate is directed to take the case on file and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to despateh the records received in this case forthwith, if possible by a special messenger, to the lower court so as to avoid any delay in transit.