STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BABUSING FATESING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the States appeal under sec. 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the sentence.

(2.) The facts of the case are that in criminal case no. 376 of 1974 before the Metropolitan Magistrate 9 Court Ahmedabad the present respondent the original accused had come to be prosecuted for offences under sec. 279 and 304A of the I.P.C. and offences under secs. 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The charge ex 2 framed against the accused was that on 3.10.74 at about 3.00 P.M. the accused had driven his motor truck No. GTA 1622 on the public road outside Raipur Gate in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and that by that act he had caused the death of one labourer Ramaji Naranji. The statement of the accused ex. 3 shows that on the day following the day of the framing of the charge that is on 4.11.74 the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and had claimed to be tried. Thereafter on 15.R.75 the formal informant one Nathusing Keshavji who was the companion of the deceased had come to be examined as a witness and his deposition is to be found at Ex. 4. The witness was cross-examined also and the rojnama shows that the case was adjourned for recording further evidence. On 20.3.75 the day on which the further evidence was recorded nothing of the sort was done but the accused gave an applieation which is numbered as M/9 and which the learned Magistrate has called as punishes of the accused for pleading guilty. It is to be noted that some other advocate had appeared for the accused that day and he had advised him to plead guilty and the learned Magistrate readily accepted the said plea and proceeded to convict the accused of all the offences with which he had come to be charged. Acting on that plea the learned Magi- strate however gave the benefit of the salutary provisions of the Proba- tion of Offenders Act and bound him over for the period of two years and directed him to furnish his personal bond and a surety bond both in the sum of Rs. 750.00. He also placed the accused under the supervision of the Probation Officer. The learned Magistrate did not appreciate in any way the evidence of the solitary witness and he has simply passed the short order of conviction and sentence. It is therefore obvious that the learned Magistrate has acted on the belated plea of guilty by the accused.

(3.) The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is curious and uncalled for by law. The only stage when the accused can plead guilty is the stage when he is called upon to plead guilty and at this stage the accused had in very clear terms stated that he did not plead guilty. The only course then open to the Magistrate was to take a decision on merits and he should not have acted on such a plea of guilty. The fact that this plea is followed by an order of release on probation smacks of a sort of a promise that if the accused accepted the charge he would be leniently dealt with but this sort of practice deserves to be discouraged very clearly and emphatically.