P. Raju alias Subramanian alias Devi Prasad vs State by Station House Keeper

Karpagavinayagam, J.—These two revisions have been preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Sub Judge-cum-Sub. Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Mahe in C.C. No. 5 of 1992 convicting him to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months each for the offences under

Sections 457, 461, 380 read with 34 and 241, I.P.C., and C.C. No. 6 of 1992 convicting him to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months

each for the offences under Sections 457, 461 and 380 read with 34, I.P.C., with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently.

The grounds taken in these revisions are that he pleaded guilty before the Court, he was not given time for reflection and he was not given legal

aid to consult and consider the case before making plea of guilty and as such, the recording of plea of guilty was not in accordance with law. He is

seeking this Hon''ble Court for remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

When the matter came up in this Court on 12.1.1996, the Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry raised the point that the revisions are not maintainable

because the appeal is only provided against the conviction and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months. So, I directed Legal Aid

to engage a counsel for the petitioner, who sent the memorandum through jail authorities to assist the court. Now when the matter is again taken up

today, it is brought to my notice by the Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry that already the sentence imposed upon the petitioner has been completely

expired and he has undergone the sentence and he has been released from the jail on 1.3.1995 itself. As per my direction, Mr. N. Doraiswamy the

learned counsel for the petitioner elaborately submitted that revisions are maintainable for the reason that these revisions have been preferred only

against the illegality of the recording of the plea of guilty, which is not voluntary and that even assuming that the revisions are not maintainable; these

could be treated as an appeal, as contemplated u/s 401(5), Criminal Procedure Code. I find some force in the contention submitted by Mr. N.

Doraiswami. But, however, the learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry has brought to my notice that the records show that already appeal has

been filed before the Sessions Court, Pondicherry and the same has been disposed of and the records, which are called for from the lower court

also should reveal this. These revisions must have been filed only after the disposal of the appeal. As such, the revisions are maintainable. Even

otherwise, I feel the revisions are maintainable for the reason that a legality of the order has been questioned in these revisions on the manner of

recording the plea of guilty, which is quite irregular. Time and again, the Courts have held though the appeal is not provided, there is no embargo

on the parties to come by way of revision to bring to the notice of the court about the illegality committed in the orders passed by the lower court.

As such, I am of the view that revisions are maintainable and I accept the contention of Mr. N. Doraiswami, who was deputed by the Legal Aid

and who has ably assisted the court to come to proper conclusion. However, since the entire period of sentence has been undergone by the

petitioner, no purpose could be served by setting aside the order remanding the matter for fresh trial. In as much as he has already undergone the

sentence, excepting to point out the above illegality, I see no reason to remand the matter back for fresh disposal.

Accordingly, the revisions are dismissed.