(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is to assail the impugned order dated 28th March, 2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the Metropolitan Magistrate while giving notice to the petitioner under Section 251 of code of criminal procedure, for commission of offence under Section 279/304-A volleyed as many as seven questions to him to find out if he was driving the offending vehicle on 7th June, 2004 at 9.30 P.M. and if so, whether he was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and whether he was responsible for causing the death of one Sanjeev Kumar Sehgal because of driving in rash and negligent manner. The Metropolitan Magistrate by invoking the Provisions of Section 251 Cr.P.C. found that the petitioner accused was under legal obligations to disclose his defence once he pleaded not guilty to the notice.
(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed the instant revision petition. Chapter XX deals with the trial of summons cases by the Magistrate. First Section of this Chapter is 251. The title of this Section is â Substance of Accusation to be statedâ which reads as under: â SUBSTANCE OF ACCUSATION TO BE STATED: When in a summons case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. ' Cardinal principles of criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. In this legal back ground, the accused when chooses not to plead guilty cannot be asked to open up his case first. It is the prosecution who is to open up the case. This is so stated in Section 251. In the case in hand, the Metropolitan Magistrate seems to have burdened the petitioner accused with the onus to prove his innocence by putting so many questions to him by taking the aid of Section 251.
(3.) The plain reading of Section 251 indicates that in case the accused does not plead guilty the Magistrate has simply to ask the accused if he has any defence to make and nothing beyond that. The Magistrate cannot at this initial stage compel the accused to disclose his defence in details particularly when the accused has right to remain silence as guaranteed to him under the Constitution of India. If the accused is asked to disclose his defence before the prosecution open up its case it shall be contrary to the basic fiber of the criminal law which presumes innocence of the accused unless proved otherwise.