Balaji vs Inspector of Police

N. Dhinakar, J.—Petitioner in all the above three revisions challenges the orders of the courts below, convicting and sentencing him to

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each u/s 457 and 380 IPC.

As the Petitioner is same in all the revisions and the point urged is also common. I have decided to pass the following common order in the

above revisions.

The Petitioner was arrayed as an accused before the Judicial Magistrate. Udu-malpet in three Calender cases viz. in C.C. Nos. 177 of 1996.

397 of 1996 and 481 of 1996 and the learned Magistrate framed the charge in each of the calender case u/s 457(2) and 380 I.P.C. He was

questioned and the Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter it was adjourned from time to time.

While so. a memo was filed on behalf of the Petitioner on 2.9.1997 in which the Petitioner stated that he is pleading guilty. The learned

Magistrate accepted the said plea, convicted him and sentenced him as stated above, which on appeal was continued.

The learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner in the above three revisions, submits that the trial court has committed illegality in accepting the

plea of guilt made by memo after he pleaded not guilty when the charges were framed and read over to him. He submits that subsequent

acceptance of guilt, is not in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure and the appellate court committed illegality by stating that

the plea made by the accused in the memo is voluntary and he therefore prays that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused may be

set aside. He submits that a fresh trial is required in the interest of justice.

I have heard the learned Government advocate on the above contentions. I see every force in the contention.

The scheme of the provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that when particulars of the offence are put to the accused u/s

242 Cr.P.C., it is open to him to admit the allegation or if he docs not plead guilty the Magistrate shall proceed to take evidence u/s 242(3) Code

of Criminal Procedure and thereafter question the accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing

against him. If at that stage, the accused admits the incriminating circumstances, then the Magistrate can accept the said plea, but not before the

case reaches the stage of 313 Code of Criminal Procedure There is no provision in the Code which contemplates filing of a memo by the accused

admitting the guilt after the initial stage u/s 242 Code of Criminal Procedure and the conviction passed on such memo is not according to law and

following such a procedure is not justified.

This view of mine is fortified by the judgment of single Judge of this Court in Re.N. Kuppaswamy (1967 MLJ (cri) 1) In view of the discussions

above, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Petitioner in all the above three revisions are set aside The above revisions are allowed. The

matters are remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law.