Plea of guilty cannot cure an excise charge where removal from the factory is not proved and no offence is established.

Conviction under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could not stand where the alleged storage and removal of manufactured goods were not proved by evidence. Goods found inside the factory premises did not satisfy the ingredient of removal, because the statutory concept of factory includes its precincts. In the absence of material sufficient to frame a sustainable charge, the accused's plea of guilty could not cure the defect since no offence was established. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside, and the revision succeeded for the accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could stand when the alleged storage of manufactured goods was unsupported by evidence and the alleged removal of goods was not established as a removal from the factory precincts.

Analysis: The alleged second item of the charge failed for want of evidence. As to the first item, the goods were found inside the factory premises, and the statutory definition of factory includes its precincts. On that footing, the ingredient of removal necessary to constitute the alleged contravention was not made out. In the absence of material sufficient to frame a sustainable charge, the accused's plea of guilty could not cure the defect, because no offence had been committed.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were unsustainable and were set aside; the revision succeeded in favour of the accused.

Final Conclusion: The criminal liability founded on the alleged excise contraventions was held not to be established, and the matter was finally disposed of by nullifying the conviction and punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of guilty does not sustain a conviction where the factual ingredients of the offence are not proved and no sustainable charge can be framed.

---