Dr. Godwin Samraj v. State of Kerala and Others

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 5272 OF 2021 [AGAINST THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN S.T.NO.984 OF 2019 DATED 9.11.2019 BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, ## KOZHIKODE.] ## PETITIONER/ACCUSED: DR.GODWIN SAMRAJ, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.LATE S.DEIVAPILLA, RESIDING AT ‘SUBAH’, PAROPPADY, MARIKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 012. BY ADVS. V.V.SURENDRAN P.A.HARISH DONA PAUL ANUSREE.C ## RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CUSBA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE CITY, CALICUT-673 635. 3 *THE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CSI DIOCESAN OFFICE, BANK ROAD, CALICUT-673 001. [*DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 28/01/2022 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2022] ## OTHER PRESENT: ADV. SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHANAN – PP FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.5272 of 2021 2 ## O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.984 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kozhikode. The aforesaid case was registered against him by the 2[nd] respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V.Act). The allegation against the petitioner is that on 18.10.2019 at 10.20 p.m., he had driven a car bearing registration No.KL-11.BP.6750 in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of alcohol. The F.I.R. was registered on 18.10.2019 and on 9.11.2019, the petitioner appeared through counsel and the counsel pleaded guilty. On the basis of such plea, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.750/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 185 of Crl.M.C.No.5272 of 2021 3 the M.V.Act. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order of convicting the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri. V.V. Surendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that, he has not authorized the lawyer to plead guilty and the instruction given was only to enter appearance on his behalf for defending the matter further. It is also pointed out that, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate for convicting the petitioner was not in tune with the statutory stipulations contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). The learned counsel also places reliance upon the decision of this Court in Raseen Babu K.M. v. State of Kerala [2021(3)KHC 394] . Crl.M.C.No.5272 of 2021 4 4. The contention of the learned counsel is that, the learned Magistrate has recorded in the order that, the particulars of the offence were read over to the accused and he has pleaded guilty. However, it is evident from the proceedings itself that the accused was absent and the appearance of the accused was through his counsel. Therefore, the question of reading over the particulars of offence to the accused has not taken place. 5. Section 251 of the Cr.PC mandates that, as soon as the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused of shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or not. Section 252 of the Cr.PC provides that if the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. However, in this case, it is evident Crl.M.C.No.5272 of 2021 5 that the petitioner was not present before the court at the relevant time and, therefore, the observations in the order that the particulars of the offence was read over to the accused cannot be correct. The petitioner also has a case that, he has not given any instruction to the counsel for pleading guilty. The necessity of compliance of the procedure while arriving at a conviction on the basis of plea of guilty by the court has been considered in Raseen Babu ’s case(supra) and it was observed in paragraph 7 as follows: _7. The elaborate procedure prescribed in the above Sections makes it abundantly clear that, conviction of an accused based on the plea of guilty is not an empty formality. The procedure prescribed has to be followed strictly, since acceptance of the plea would result in an accused being convicted without trial. In this regard it is apposite to consider the legal meaning of the word "plead" which is 'to make, deliver, or file any pleading'; 'to conduct the pleadings in a cause'; 'interpose any pleading in a suit which contains allegations of fact,' 'to deliver in a formal manner the defendant's answer to the plaintiff's declaration, or to the indictment, as the case may be'. The meaning of the word 'guilty' in legal dictionaries is as follows:_ _"Having committed a crime or tort; the word used by a prisoner in pleading to an indictment when he confesses the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting."_ Crl.M.C.No.5272 of 2021 6 _Therefore, going by the meanings of the words 'plea and guilty, the term 'pleading guilty' should be require a positive and informed act of admitting all the elements of the offence/s. Mere lip service or a monosyllabic 'yes', in reply to a pointed question by the Court, cannot, under any circumstance, be equated with, or accepted as, pleading of guilt by the accused.”_ From the above, it is evident that, while convicting the accused on the basis of plea of guilty, the Magistrate has to ensure that, the plea is made by him after understanding consequences of the same and gravity of the punishment, which he is exposed to. In this case no such exercise for ensuring the same is seen to have been done. Moreover, the petitioner also has a case that the plea of guilty was made by the counsel without his authorization in this regard. Therefore, I am of the view that, the petitioner can be granted a further opportunity in the matter. 6. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, holding the petitioner guilty and consequential conviction and sentence upon him by Crl.M.C.No.5272 of 2021 7 the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Kozhikode vide order dated 9.11.2019 in S.T.No.984 of 2019 is to be set aside and it is ordered accordingly. The learned Magistrate shall re-open the case and re-consider the matter afresh after issuing summons to the petitioner herein in this regard. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of. Since the order of conviction has been set aside by this Court, the petitioner can submit appropriate petition before the learned Magistrate seeking release of the fine amount which he has already deposited and appropriate orders releasing the same shall be passed by the learned Magistrate. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE pkk Crl.M.C.No.5272 of 2021 8 ## APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5272/2021 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: |Annexure A1|TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE FIR DATED| |---|---| ||18.10.2019 DOWNLOADED FROM E COURT.| |Annexure A2|TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF PROCEEDINGS| ||DOWNLOADED FROM E COURT DATED 09.11.2019.| |Annexure A3|CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN ST 984/2019 OF| ||JFCM III, KOZHIKODE.| |Annexure A4|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND| ||STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ALONG WITH THE| ||COVERING LETTER DATED 14.09.2021.| |Annexure A5|TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPLY DATED| ||28.09.2021.| |Annexure A6|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||26.10.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.| |Annexure A7|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO ADVOCATE TO| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2021.|