S SUNDARARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused are the revision petitioners herein. THE respondent herein on 13.03.2007 registered an FIR against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 75 of Madras City Police Act, on the basis of the complaint given by one Santhi during the pendency of civil dispute in O.S.No.8 of 2007 between the first petitioner herein and Santhi and the FIR culminated in STC No.1835 of 2007 on 14.03.2007, on which date the accused were furnished with the copies and questioned and found guilty on the basis of their admissions and were convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and the fine amount was paid by the petitioners and the same is followed by the representation dated 26.03.2007 made by the second petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Egmore Chennai.

(2.) THE petitioners have also simultaneously preferred the criminal revision against the order of conviction and sentence made against them in S.C.No.1835 of 2007. THE petitioners have, in the representation made by the second petitioner to the Commissioner of Police and in the memorandum of grounds raised herein and in the affidavit filed before this Court, raised serious allegations as if they were not actually produced before the Court on 14.03.2007 and they were not furnished with copies of documents and they were not permitted to engage any counsel and they were not given sufficient opportunity to defend the case and the order of conviction is passed without following the due process of law as set out in the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) IN the case dealt with by the our High Court cited supra, the accused was produced before the Magistrate Court on 01.07.1997 and he was, according to the petitioner therein, coerced and threatened and without knowing the consequences, he pleaded guilty and when the same was challenged as not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and on the ground that he was not given sufficient time to acquaint himself as to what is the prosecution case and to understand the same and to take legal advice and to prepare himself either to claim a trial to defend himself or to take a decision to plead guilty, our High Court was pleased to set aside the sentence imposed upon him by negativing the contention raised on the side of the prosecution that the petitioner was furnished with the documents in the morning on 01.07.1997 and he was given time till the evening to take a decision and the said time given to him is reasonable and the order of the Magistrate is in accordance with the procedures contemplated under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Our High Court by relying upon the earlier judgment of our High Court reported in 1989 Mad L.W. (Cri) 485 (Ramalingam Vs. State) observed that the time given in this case viz., one day cannot be said to be due compliance of Section 251 of Cr.P.C and the opportunity contemplated in law should be a real opportunity in the eye of law and not merely a farce. It is further observed by our High Court that the learned Magistrate has erred in, after furnishing the document in the morning, taking up the matter to record the statement of the petitioner as to whether he pleads guilty on the same day and it cannot be considered as reasonable opportunity. Our High Court is, by observing so, pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner as unsustainable.