spb/- 1 15-10-revn130-01.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2001 Shambhai Mithubai Tamboli & Ors. ... Petitioners/Applicants. ( Org.Accused) Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ...... Mr. Sachin Chauan i/by S.S. Kulkarni for the Applicants. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. ...... CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 15TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate convicting the petitioners for offence punishable under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Preventing of Gambling Act, 1887 and sentencing them to suffer S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to under go simple imprisonment for 15 days. This order was challenged by the petitioners in the Sessions Court. However, the learned Sessions Court also confirmed the said order of the trial court. spb/- 2 15-10-revn130-01.sxw 3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the provisions of section 251 and 275 were not followed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, while recording the plea of conviction and therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was patently illegal. He submitted that under the aforesaid provisions, it is the duty of the Magistrate to explain particulars of the offence and substance of the charge in the regional language and that this fact has to be mentioned in the said order after the plea is recorded. He invited my attention to Exh. 5 of which the said plea of the petitioners is recorded. He submitted that the petitioners have given their answers in Marathi and have signed in Marathi and the particulars of the offence and the plea of the accused is typed in English. 4 Learned APP on the other hand submitted that the Sessions Court in its order has observed that the substance of the offence was explained by him to the petitioners in Marathi and therefore, the learned Magistrate was entitled to convict and sentence the accused / the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under sections 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Gambling Act. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court in the case of Anand Vithoba Lohkare vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1999 (2) Mh. L.J.-435. I have perused the orders passed by the both the courts below. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to take into consideration the relevant provisions of sections 251 and 252,which reads thus : spb/- 3 15-10-revn130-01.sxw “251. Substance of accusation to be stated.--- When in a summons-case 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 whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. 252. Conviction on plea of guilty.--- If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon”. 6 I have also perused Exh. 5 where the plea of the accused is recorded. The learned Magistrate has no where stated, after recording the plea that a substance of the offence and the charge was explained to the accused in Marathi. The accused have signed the plea in Marathi. There is much substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perusal of sections 251 and 252 revealed that a duty is cast on the Magistrate to ensure that the plea is properly explained and consequence of pleading guilty is also explained to the accused. It is only thereafter the plea of guilty, as pleaded be recorded. If this exercise is not followed, then it possible that accused under a mistaken belief that me may be let off and/or acquitted, may plead guilty to the offence. The safeguards provided in section 251 and 252 is therefore, for the benefit of the accused and in order to ensure that they did not plead spb/- 4 15-10-revn130-01.sxw guilty under a mistaken belief. It is the duty of the Magistrate, therefore, to ensure that this procedure is properly followed, particularly in a cases where minimum sentence is of imprisonment and payment of fine. The ratio in the judgment of Anand V. Lohkare’s case (supra), in my view, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 7 In this view of the matter, impugned order passed by the trial court and confirmed by the Sessions Court is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the trial court with permission to proceed further from the stage of admission. The trial is expedited. 8 The Cri. Revision Application is allowed and disposed off accordingly. [V.M. KANADE, J.]