In Re: N. Abimannu

Natarajan, J.—This is an appeal against the conviction of the Appellant for offences punishable u/s 338, I.P.C., Section 337 (2 counts) I.P.C. and Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The charge against the Appellant was that on 23rd September, 1973 at about 7 p.m. he drove the car bearing registration number MYV-5605 in a rash and negligent manner and knocked down three persons, viz., Sehumar, Gopalaswamy and Vijayalakshmi, and then hit a stationary lorry, and thereafter, only stopped the car. Sehumar sustained grievous injuries while the other two sustained simple injuries.

After the appearance of the Appellant and the furnishing of copies to him, the learned Magistrate questioned him and has recorded the plea of guilt made by the accrued and convicted him under the various charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the conviction u/s 338 , I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each for the convictions under Ss.337 (2 counts) I.P.C. and Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. From out of the fine amounts certain amounts have been ordered to be given as compensation to the injured persons.

The point urged in the appeal is that the plea of guilt recorded by the Magistrate is not in accordance with S. 243 of Cr. P.C., 1898.

From the records it is seen that the learned Magistrate has made the following endorsements in the record:

(Ad. Accused) Present. C.F. (Copies furnished.

Call on 30.11.1673. B.O.A. (Bind over accused),

Sd......... Magistrate.

Ad. present. Heard both sides. He P.G. Pleads guilty) to charges under S 338,I.P.C. and 337, I.P.C, 2 counts and 916 M V. Act. I find him guilty on his admission which is free & voluntary. The accused has driven his car rashly and negligently gone to the extreme right side of the road, hit one Sehumar and again 2 persons and then against a lorry. So, he has gone with uncontrollable speed, He deserves deferent sentence. I, convict and sentence him to undergo R. I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- i.e two months R. I, u/s 333, I.P.C. to pay fine of Rs. 100/. under each of 2 counts under S, 397(sic),I. P. C. i.e. one month R. I. and Rs 100/-. i.e., 2.W. R. I. u/s 116 M V. Act. Total fine Rs. 500/-. Out of this if collected Rs 100/-. will be paid to P W. 3 and Rs. 75/- to each of P Ws. 3 and 5 in charge-sheet. An endorsement will be made in D.L, (Driving Licence).

Sd.-......... Magistrate

In support of the contention that the non-recording of the Appellant''s plea in the words used by him is an incurable irregularity, reliance is placed on the decision reported in S. Chinnaswamy, In re 1972 L.W. Cri. 146, and Sivaguru. In re 1974 L.W. Crl. 199 Both these decisions lay down that if the accused admits the commission of the offence of which he is accused, his admission should be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him. The recording of the plea of guilt by using the abbreviated form '' A.P.G.'' has been held to be not in conformity with S. 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Though, in the instant case, I do not with to express a contrary opinion to the ratio laid down in the cases referred to above, I would, however, like to state that at some future point of time there may be justification for a re-thinking on the matter. A plethora of charge-sheets relating to minor and trivial offences under various Acts, such as the Motor Vehicles Act, the City Police Act, etc., are filed in the Courts of the Metropolitan Magistrates every day. In most of the cases the accused enter a plea of guilt and pay the fine amounts imposed on them without demur. The charges are simple and the punishment is also generally one of fine. If it is to be held that even in those cases, which are all now tried by Stipendiary Magistrates and not Honorary Presidency Magistrates, the plea of the accused must be written in a detailed manner and as nearly as possible in the words of the accused, it would considerably retard the disposal of these patty cases in the various Courts, and, ultimately, the accused persons for whose benefit the direction to the Court is found in S. 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would themselves be the sufferers.

Be that as it may, in conformity with the ratio laid down in the decisions referred to above, I uphold the Appellant''s contention and set aside his conviction. Consequently, the ease will have to be tried once over again and for that purpose, the case is remitted to the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, who is now holding the Court of the former III Presidency Magistrate, for disposal according to law.