In Brief
An appellant was convicted under Section 9(1) of the A.P. Gaming Act for conducting matka gambling. The Additional Judicial Magistrate recorded his guilty plea with minimal documentation—merely noting he "pleaded guilty" without recording his exact words as required by law. The High Court rejected his revision petition. The Supreme Court held that Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 mandatorily requires the accused's admission be recorded in his own words. Failure to comply vitiates the conviction, as the precise wording is essential to secure justice and prevent misapprehension. The Court set aside the conviction.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.