State vs Chandubhai Gordhanbhai

V.B. Raju, J.—This is an application for enhancement of the sentence passed on one Chandubhai Gordhanhhai who was convicted on his own plea of guilty u/s 63 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act in respect of worker Dhanji Ramji. While opposing the application for enhancement of the sentence the Learned Counsel for the opponent contends that the conviction is illegal and improper and that the plea of guilty is not really a plea of guilty as the learned Magistrate failed to follow the provisions of Section 242 Criminal Procedure Code. That section reads as follows:

When the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him and he shall be asked it he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted; but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.

The record shows that before the plea of the accused was taken he was only told that he was prosecuted u/s 63 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act in respect of worker Dhanji Ramji This is not a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 242 Criminal Procedure Code. Under this section particulars of the Offence of which he is accused shall be stated. Particulars of the act done by the accused which according to the prosecution amounts to an offence must be stated. The time and place of the alleged act or omission and such other matters as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged must be stated. It is not sufficient merely to state the section of the law under which the accused is prosecuted. The prosecution case was that according to the notice exhibited in the factory the period of work for workers was between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. whereas the worker Dhanji Ramji was found to be working at 5-50 a.m. on 3-5-1960 contrary to the notice period of workers according to which workers were expected to work only between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. All these particulars must be stated before the plea of the accused is taken. As this has not been done the provisions of Section 242 Criminal Procedure Code have not been complied with and the plea of guilty made by the accused in such circumstances would not amount to a plea of guilty. This is conceded by Mr. Choksi the learned Government Pleader. The Learned Counsel for the opponent therefore prayed for a re-trial of the case. The learned Government Pleader has no objection. As the provisions of Section 242 have not been complied with the conviction based on the plea of guilty which does not amount to a plea of guilty is set aside and I order a re-trial.