MAHANT KAUSHALYA DAS versus STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 07-05-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
• 
E 
F 
G 
• I 
H 
MAHANT KAUSHALYA DAS 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS 
May 7, 1965 
[A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 243, 362(2)(A)-
S. 243-Whether mandatory-Violation, if vitiates trial-If overrides 
s. 362(2)(A). 
The appellant was arrested by the police and immediately produced 
before the Presidency Magistrate, Madras on a charge under s. 4(1) (A) 
of the Madras Prohibition Act on the allegation that he was in p~ession 
of a certain amount of Ganja concealed in a wooden box in his pre-
mises without any permit. 
The appellant pleaded guilty and upon that 
pica, he was convicted by the Magistrate. The appellant preferred an 
appeal to the High Court alleging, inter alia, 'that he was an illiterate per-
son, not acquainted with English or Tamil or with any other South 
Indian language and he only knew Hindi as it was spoken in 
Uttar 
Pradesh, that the proceedings were rushed through with undue haste, 
that he did not really plead guilty to the charge and he had never under-
stood the implications of the offence or proceedings before the Magistrate. 
The High Court called for a report from 1he Presidency Magistrate who 
submitted that the particulars of the offence and 
the plea of guilty by 
the appellant were explained to the appellant by an interpreter-the 
Bench Clerk who had passed examinations in Hindi, and the appellant's 
allegations were false. 
Thereafter the High Court dismissed th.e appeal. 
In appeal by certificate, the appelant, inter alia, contended that the Magis-
trate did not comply with the mandatory provisions of s. 243 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, that the appellant (had been deprived of the 
substance of a fair trial, that the conviction of the appellant was legally 
invalid. 
HELD : The requirements of s. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code 
are mandatory in character and a violation of these provisions vitiates the 
trial and renders the conviction legally invalid. The requirement of the 
section is not a mere empty formality but is la matter of substance in-
tended to secure proper administration of justice. 
It is important that 
the terms of the section are strictly complied with because the right of 
appeal of the accused depends upon the circumstance whether he pleaded 
guilty or not and it is for this reason that the legislature requires that the 
exact words used by the accused in his plea of guilty should, as nearly 
as possible, be recorded in his own language in order to prevent any 
mistaket or misapprehension. [233 D-F] 
Section 243 of th'e Code is a provision of a special character and 
according to well established rule of interpretation that special provision 
will take precedence and override the general provision of s. 362(2) (A) 
of the Code. [234 A-Bl 
The violation 
of the procedure 
in s. 243 .of the Code was suffi-
ciently serious to invalidate the conviction of the accused. It wag mani-
fest from the record that the admission of the appellant had not been 
recorded "as nearly as possible in the words used by him", as required 
by s. 243 of the Code. [233 F. B-C] 
230 
SlJPll.l!MB 
COURT 
REPORTS 
(1966) I S.C.R. 
Queen-Eniprt.'.~s v. Eru.l(udu, I.L.R. 15 ,\fad. 85, Slrailaba/a I>asee v. 
A 
Emperor, l.L.R. 6: ('al. 1127 and AJ11ku11di Lal v. Stale, A.LR. 1952 
All. 212. approved. 
C1v1L APPEi.LAT!' JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 131 of 
1963. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 29. 1963 u 
of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1963. 
E. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant. 
A. Ranganadham Cherry and A. V. Rangam, for the respon-
dent. 
The Judgment of ll:c Court was delivered by 
Ramarn·ami, .J. 
1 his 
appeal 
" 
brought 
by 
c .. ~rtificatc 
granted under Art. 134 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution from a judg-
ment of the Mdr;is High Court dated April 29, 1963 in Crimi-
c 
nal Appeal 
No. 251 of 1963 
affirming the convictinn of the 
D 
appellant-Sri Mahant Kaushal ya Das under s. 4 ( 1 ) (a) of the 
Madras Prohibition Act 
and the sentence of one yc~r Rigorous 
Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 or in default 
rigorous 
im-
prisonment for one month. 
The appellant is the hereditary Mahant of Sri Bairaghi Matam 
-a Hindu Religious and Charitable 
Institution of a monastic 
nature. 
The appellant has been residing in the Matam premises, 
Elephant Gale, Madras which is a public place of worship. 
On 
March 22, 1963 at about I 0 a.m. the appellant was 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.