In Re: R. Kothandapani

Venkataraman, J.—In this case the charge was filed by the Police against three accused. One of them pleaded guilty even at the outset as

soon as the charge was framed. He was duly convicted. Another S.R. Subramaniam initially pleaded not guilty. But after some of the prosecution

witnesses were examined he filed a written Memorandum admitting the offence and pleading guilty. He was convicted on his plea on 25th June

1966 and was released u/s 4(1)(a) of the Central Probation of Offenders Act Thereafter he was cited as a prosecution witness against the

remaining accused Kothandapani. Kothandapani filed an application before the Additional First Class Magistrate to set aside the conviction of

S.R. Subramaniam on 25th June 1966 and objecting to his examination as a witness.

It would appear that it was brought to the notice of the Magistrate that according to the judgment of this Court in C.A. 231 and 383 of 1966

(Mad), it was not open to the Magistrate to have accepted the plea of ''guilty'' of S.R. Subramaniam after he had initially pleaded not guilty. In that

judgment Sadasivam J. has referred to a judgment of mine wherein I had taken the same view The learned Magistrate observed that it was not

wrong for him to have accepted the plea of guilty of Subramaniam and that Kothandapani could not plead any prejudice on that account. However

he accepted the other objection and ruled that Subramaniam would not be allowed to be examined as a prosecution witness. Kothandapani has

preferred this revision petition against the above order.

Sri S.M. Ali Mohammed contends that in view of the decision of this Court, referred to above, it was not open to the Magistrate to accept the

plea of guilty of S.R. Subramaniam. This is correct but I do not see how the petitioner (Kothandapani) can plead prejudice on that account or can

ask this Court to set aside the conviction of Subramaniam. Since the learned Magistrate has ruled that Subramaniam will not be examined as a

prosecution witness, the petitioner cannot have any possible grievance. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.