ABDUL JALEEL Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in S.T. No. 2233/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode and the revision petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 95/2012 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) Petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 2233/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode which was taken on file on the basis of a check report filed by the first respondent alleging that on 31.1.2010, the petitioner had driven the vehicle KL-11/G-1787 in a rash and negligent manner and he was not found to be in possession of Pollution Control Certificate and thereby he had committed the offence punishable under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also Rule 152 read with Section 190(2) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Act. According to the petitioner, he had not committed any offence. When he was intercepted by the first respondent, he told him that he was having the pollution control certificate and he was told that he can produce the certificate before the first respondent on the subsequent date so as to avoid payment of fine or he can come and pay the fine in the office of 1st respondent and if he does not want to pay the fine, then he can contest the case before court. So he went to the office of the first respondent with the pollution control certificate. But he was abused by the first respondent and he complained the same to the higher police officials but they were also against him and he later came to understand that charge sheet has already been filed before court incorporating Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well. He was manhandled by the first respondent and other police officials. So he filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court earlier dismissed the complaint against which he filed revision as Crl. R.P. No. 82/2011 and the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order of dismissal as against accused Nos. 2 to 4 in that complaint but set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint as against the first accused, who is the first respondent herein and remitted the case to the court below for fresh disposal as against the first accused in that case. Thereafter he filed W.P. (C). No. 11019/2010 before this Court and this Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police to conduct enquiry regarding false implication of the petitioner in some cases by the first respondent and others and without conducting any proper enquiry, final report in this case and also other cases were filed. In fact, on 31.5.2010 he appeared before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode and the case was not called and when he enquired about the same with the Bench Clerk of that court, he was called to the chambers of the learned Magistrate and wanted to ascertain whether he wanted to plead guilty or not and he informed the magistrate that he is not intended to plead guilty but he was made to sign certain papers. Thereafter he came to understand from the court officials that he was convicted on the plea of guilt alleged to have been made and he was made to remit the fine of Rs. 1,100/-. Thereafter he remitted the fine and obtained certified copy of the judgment and then filed revision before the Sessions Court which was taken on file as Crl. R.P. No. 95/2012. It was made over to the First Additional Sessions Court for disposal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge though found that there is illegality in not recording the plea of guilt of the petitioner and obtaining signature of the petitioner in the same but came to the conclusion that, that alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the plea recorded by the court below and the conviction entered by the court below is illegal considering the conduct of the petitioner and dismissed the revision by the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in person challenging the order passed by the courts below under Section 482 of the Code.

(3.) Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person and argued the case and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.