Judgment AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. There is a limitation petition in this case which was directed to be considered at the time of final hearing vide order dated 24.5.1995. 2. For the reasons stated in the limitation petition it is allowed and the delay in filing of this Criminal Revision is condoned. 3. By judgment and order, dated 13.6.1989 passed by the Executive Magis-trate-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa in Case No. 5 of 1989 the petitioner was convicted under Sections 4, 8 and 10 of the Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981 and sentenced to undergo one months imprisonment. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed by judgment and order, dated 1.4.1992 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 1989. The petitioner has undergone the imprisonment awarded to him but Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel representing him still pressed this application assailing his conviction as stated above. 4. According to the prosecution case on 12.6.1988 the petitioner was apprehended by a raiding patty headed by an officer of the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police while he was loafing around along with some other boys in the vicinity of an examination centre. The raiding party arrested the petitioner and forwarded him to the Special Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa along with their report dated 12.6.1989 (Copy at Annexure-1). This gave rise to Case No, 5 of 1989. 5. From the first order recorded on 12.6.1989 it appears that as the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate at late in the night he was remanded for a day with a direction for his production on the next day. From the order recorded on the next day (13.6.1989) it appears that on the petitioners production before the Magistrate the substance of the allegations was read out to him but he did not confess his guilt whereupon the Special Judicial Magistrate straightway went on to convict and punish him. Neither from the order-sheet nor from the lower Court records it appears that any evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution on the petitioners refusal to confess his guilt. 6. Mr. Sinha submitted that Section 11 of the Conduct of Examination Act, 1981 provides that the offences committed under the Act would be disposed of following the procedure for summary trial. 6. Mr. Sinha submitted that Section 11 of the Conduct of Examination Act, 1981 provides that the offences committed under the Act would be disposed of following the procedure for summary trial. Section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with the procedure of summary trials is as follows : 262. Procedure for summary trials. (1) In trials under this Chapter, the procedure specified in this Code of the trial of summons-case shall be followed except as hereinafter mentioned. (2) No sentence of of imprisenment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed in the case of any conviction under this Chapter. 7. Section 254 of the Code provides that if the accused does not make a plea of guilt and is, therefore, not convicted under Section 252 or Section 253, the Magistrate would proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also to hear the accused as take all such evidence as he produced in his defence. 8. Mr. Sinha submitted that the Special Judicial Magistrate did not follow the legal procedure and convicted the petitioner on no evidence despite his not pleading guilty. 9. The submissions made by Mr. Sinha are well founded and it appears to met that the impugned order was passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate without any application of mind and it is quite illegal and unsustainable. The impugned under dated 13.6.1989 and the order dated 1.4.1992 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions judge, Nalanda convicting the petitioner under Sections 4, 8 and 10 of the Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981 are accordingly set aside. 10. In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed.