M KUPPUSWAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unfortunate case. The facts are these. The petitioner Kuppuswami was charged by the Sub Inspector of Police before the VIIIth Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras, for an offence under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, the allegation being that on 14. 9. 1965 at about 16 hours at Kothawalchavadi, he was found in possession of a bottle containing 12 ounces of coloured alcohol and a small bottle containing 1 ounce of coloured alcohol without permit. On 15. 9. 1965 the first day of hearing, when the copies of the records were furnished to him and he was questioned under Section 242, Criminal P. C. (this being a summons case), he denied the offence. Consequently, summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses. The case was adjourned to 21. 9. 1965. Since the witnesses were not ready, it was adjourned to 29th September 1965. On that day, the following is what happened according to the judgment of the learned Magistrate:

(2.) THE accused has filed this criminal revision and has filed an affidavit stating that he did not plead guilty at all, that a fraud was played upon him by an advocate, Mr. Ansari whom he engaged and that the advocate made him understand that the case against him had been dismissed and that he could go home after signing some paper he produced. Actually the memorandum is written in English but signed by the accused in Tamil.

(3.) IN view of the serious allegations made by the petitioner I called for a report from the learned Magistrate and also issued notice to Mr. Ansari. The Magistrate has sent a report, the relevant portion of which is: On 28th September 1965 Mr. Ansari, Advocate, filed a memo signed by the accused representing that the accused volunteered and pleaded guilty and pleaded for leniency. The accused was questioned with reference to the memo signed by him and be accepted it. The case was disposed of later admonishing him under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Mr. Ansari has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying that he played any fraud and stating that on 29th September 1965 the accused came to him and wanted his help saying that be was going to plead guilty in the case. It was thereupon that he drafted the memo and the learned Magistrate also questioned the accused with reference to the contents of the Memorandum and the accused pleaded guilty.