C. Selvaraj vs State

A. Packiaraj, J.—This revision has been filed against the judgement passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.

No. 24 of 1996 confirming the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner herein by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore in

C.C. No. 182 of 1995 of offences u/s 324 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- The

said conviction arose in view of the fact that the accused pleaded guilty of the said offence.

Three points have been raised in relation to the legality of the conviction. The first is that after the accused has been questioned and his plea of

guilt has been recorded, the learned Magistrate ought to have followed Section 241. Section 241 of Cr. P.C. reads as follows :

If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea and may in his discretion convict him thereon.

The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasis the words. ""In his discretion"" and goes on to say that the discretion of conviction has to be

necessarily reflected in the judgement. In other words, according to the counsel, the learned Magistrate has to spell out his reasons before he

passes a sentence of conviction. I am afraid that I an not able to subscribe to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel that the reason spelt

out in the judgment is the only source that can reveal the discretion of the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in the present case has not passed a

single order but instead has narrated the substance of the allegations called out from the records, produced u/s 173(2) before him by the

respondent and it is only thereafter, he questioned the accused in relation to the sentence, which has been awarded and finally passed the

conviction and passed the appropriate sentence, which in his opinion deems suitable in the circumstances of the case. The very fact that the learned

Magistrate has taken pains and passed considered order would itself reveal the discretion that has been contemplated u/s 241 Cr. P.C. I may also

add mat the words ""in his discretion"" finding a place in section 241 would only mean that it is open to the Magistrate to accept the plea or not to

accept the same. There may be circumstances, where the Magistrate might have come to know that the accused was pressurised to plead guilty or

that the it may be a plea bargain. Hence (though this is not exhaustive) these are some examples which would go to show mat the Magistrate may

in certain circumstances not accept the plea. However, I do not think that the Magistrate has to necessarily incorporate in his order that he is

exercising his discretion to accept the plea. The fact that he has passed such an order would itself reveal his discretion that he has applied the same

and has accepted the plea. Therefore, I hold that the Magistrate has in effect followed section 241 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order is not

attractive.

The second point raised by the learned counsel is that the accused was charged for an offence u/s 324 I.P.C. and consequently there must have

been a weapon that is said to have been used. However that the adenda mentioned in the judgment mentions the following :

Material Objects - Nil

So, from this the learned counsel wants us to infer that there is no weapon and consequently the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind. I am

afraid that this argument also does not appear to be a reasonable one. It is not necessary that in every case wherein the witnesses have sustained

injuries, the weapon has to be recovered. The statement of the witnesses is available before the court coupled with the wound certificate and when

the accused himself has accepted whether or no there is any weapon, it matters little. Consequently, I reject this contention.

The third and final argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the learned Magistrate has not followed section 360 Cr. P.C. section 360

Cr. P.C. is a beneficiary piece of legislation, wherein a person not under the age of 21 and if he is likely to be sentenced to an imprisonment of

below seven years, the Magistrate shall consider having regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender to release him on probation of

good conduct. The Magistrate is also to consider the facts. In the present case, it is true that the Magistrate has not given due weight to the age of

the accused or to his character or antecedents and the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and

on going through the records. I find that the injured in the present case is none other than the colleague of the petitioner herein. The said colleague

namely the victim herein appears to have become friendly with the wife of the petitioner and the petitioner herein coming to know of it and enraged

by this, had assaulted him. In such circumstances of the case, the learned counsel would persuade me to release the petitioner u/s 360 Cr. P.C.

However, the entire records are not before me and under what circumstance he had, has to be narrated by him and him alone. Therefore, I feel

that in the circumstances of the case, that the Magistrate may take into consideration the circumstances of the case and question the accused and

give an opportunity to the petitioner in person to explain under what circumstances he has committed the offence and the Magistrate is directed to

give appropriate reasons for imposing any sentence or releasing him on good conduct. However, I make it clear that this order does not in any way

give a direction to the Magistrate to consider the matter in a particular manner. It is open for the Magistrate to independently of this order to come

to a conclusion which he deems fit in the circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders. With this observation I set aside the sentence

alone and direct the Judicial Magistrate No. II Coimbatore to take up the follow up action in view of the plea of guilt already recorded by the

Magistrate.