Mandatory recording of plea in accused's own words makes a guilty plea valid; non-compliance invalidates conviction.

Recording an accused's plea of guilt in the accused's own words is a mandatory safeguard under criminal procedure. A mere recital that the accused pleaded guilty is insufficient unless the actual words or exact admission are recorded as nearly as possible in the accused's language. Non-compliance is a substantive defect, not a procedural irregularity, because it affects the legality of the conviction. On that basis, the conviction could not be sustained and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained when the Magistrate did not record the plea of guilt in the accused's own words as required by Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The statutory requirement that the plea of guilt be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused is mandatory. A mere statement that the accused pleaded guilty, without recording the actual words or exact admission, does not satisfy the safeguard embodied in the provision. Non-compliance is a matter of substance and not a mere formality, because it affects the legality of the conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable and was set aside.

---