Mandatory recording of guilty plea in accused's own words prevails over general procedure; conviction set aside.
A statutory requirement to record an accused's guilty plea as nearly as possible in the accused's own words was treated as mandatory; a bare entry of guilt, without the substance of the admission, was held insufficient and the conviction was invalidated. A general provision on recording the substance of examination could not replace the special procedure governing guilty pleas, because the specific rule prevailed over the general one. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remitted for retrial in accordance with law.
Issues: (i) Whether, when the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate's failure to record the admission as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused under Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code vitiates the conviction. (ii) Whether Section 362(2)(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code could be applied in place of the special procedure under Section 243 where the accused pleaded guilty.
Issue (i): Whether, when the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate's failure to record the admission as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused under Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code vitiates the conviction.
Analysis: The statutory requirement was treated as mandatory. The record only showed a bare plea of guilty, but did not disclose the actual words or substance of the admission in the accused's own language. The purpose of the provision is substantive, not formal, because the exact recording of the plea safeguards the accused's rights and prevents misunderstanding. A failure to comply with this requirement was held to invalidate the conviction.
Conclusion: The non-compliance with Section 243 vitiated the trial and rendered the conviction legally invalid.
Issue (ii): Whether Section 362(2)(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code could be applied in place of the special procedure under Section 243 where the accused pleaded guilty.
Analysis: Section 362(2)(A) was held to be a general provision dealing with the memorandum of the substance of examination, whereas Section 243 specifically governs the case of a guilty plea. The special provision was held to override the general one, so the respondent's reliance on Section 362(2)(A) was rejected.
Conclusion: Section 362(2)(A) did not apply, and Section 243 governed the plea of guilty.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter was sent back for retrial in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly requires an accused's admission of guilt to be recorded as nearly as possible in his own words, strict compliance is mandatory, and a special procedural provision governing guilty pleas prevails over any general provision.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
