Emperor v. Sursing Mathuradas

Batty, J.:— There are two objections taken to the way in which this case has been dealt with by the Third Presidency Magistrate. The first is, that he has recorded, what is described as a plea of guilty made on hehali of his client by the pleader. It will suffice to say that no pleader can be called upon to plead on behalf of his client “guilty” or “not guilty” and that it is improper for a Magistrate to act on such plea.

2. The second objection taken is that the order recorded represents the accused as having been sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment. The Magistrate states in his report to this Court that that means that the accused was “warned and discharged.” If it is the practice of the Court to substitute for the words “warned and discharged” the statement that the accused has been sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment, we think that such practice is improper. The record should be in accord with the actual facts of the proceedings.

3. We accordingly direct that the proceedings be amended so as to correspond with the actual order passed.

Aston, J.:— I accept the Magistrate's report and have no doubt that the petitioner's pleader Mr. Velinker stated in the presence and hearing of petitioner that petitioner pleaded guilty. It would perhaps have been more regular in form if the Magistrate had called on the petitioner to say with his own lips whether he denied the truth of the complaint.

4. But Mr. Lowndes has not pressed the point that the conviction was illegal. He objects to the words in brackets after W. and D. in the description of the sentence. I understand by these letters entered on the record that the petitioner was warned and discharged but the Magistrate has reported as to the words in brackets (one day's S.I) after the W. and D. that he did in fact pass the order of one day's simple imprisonment, but let the petitioner leave the Court at once without being detained Such an order being in the Presidency Courts deemed equivalent to a warning, and discharge, I concur that the proceedings be amended so aa to correspond with the actual order passed.