THILLAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned V. Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in C. C. No. 2130 of 1980 on his file, convicting the revision-petitiorer under section 394 read with section 34. Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 1' years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE case against the revision-petitioner was that on 11th July, 1980, at about 5-30 a. m. , he along with three others stopped a lorry and voluntarily caused hurt to Ramachandran, one of the persons proceeding in the lorry and also committed robbery of a sum of Rs. 500/- from the said ramachandran. THE first accused-revision petitioner pleaded not guilty to a charge framed under section 394 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, but subsequently filed a memorandum admitting the offence and the Magistrate on the admission, which, according to him, was voluntary, convicted him and sentenced him as stated above. THE revision-petitioner now challenges the conviction and sentence and in the memorandum sent to this Court, be states that no trial was held, that the police instructed him to admit the offence so that he may be acquitted and for that purpose they got his signature on a blank paper. It is most deplorable that the learned Magistrate has disposed of the case in a cavalier fashion. In this case, the earlier plea of the accused was not guilty. It is only subsequently he pleaded guilty to the charge by filing a memorandum before the Court. THE Magistrate has not examined any witnesses subsequent to the accused pleading guilty to the charge. In my view, the Magistrate is not justified in accepting the plea and convicting the accused merely on the basis of such a plea. In Kuppuswamy, In re1., Venkataraman, J. , has pointed out that there is no provision contemplating the filing of a memo, by the accused admitting the guilt after initial stage under section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears to me that the Magistrate was wrong in relying upon this plea of guilty subsequently made by the accused without even taking evidence, and when it demands, still greater caution on the part of the Magistrate, as the accused on an earlier occasion denied the accusation against him and pleaded not guilty.