RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are charge-sheeted for an offence under Sec.292-A, Indian Penal Code, before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kumbakonam, in C.C.No.293 of 1985. The allegation against them was that at 11.15 P.M. on 313.1985 at the Vijayalakshmi Cinema Theatre, they exhibited a grossly indecent picture. The first petitioner appears to be the operator of the theatre, and the other two were found in the projector room during the exhibition of the film. The petitioners were arrested by the Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam, on the same night and produced on 1.4.1985, while they were still in his custody, before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kumbakonam. As soon as the accused were produced before him along with the charge-sheet, the trial Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under Sec.260, Criminal Procedure Code, thought it fit that the case must be tried as a Calendar Case, and cannot be tried summarily. Soon thereafter, it is seen from the records that all the three petitioners had filed a joint memorandum before the trial Magistrate which, translated into English reads as follows: �The case has been filed against us by the Kumbakonam North Police. We admit the case against us. We bow down and pray that the case may be taken on file and disposed of today itself. Since we are all first offenders, we respectfully plead for a lenient sentence.� This petition has been allowed by the trial Magistrate on the same day, which further led to his questioning each of the accused, under Sec.251, Crl.P.C. It is better to extract the question framed for the answer of each of the accused, by translating it into English: �On 31.3.1985 at 11.15 P.M., at Vijayalakshmi Theatre, situated in Besant Road, Kumbakonam, you had exhibited an obscene picture, grossly indecent, and sufficient to induce prurient interest, punishable under Sec.292-A, I.P.C., and hence show cause why you should not be punished.� Each of the petitioners has answered �it is true�. Thereafter, the trial Magistrate, accepting the plea of the petitioners, holding then guilty, convicted each of them for an offence under Sec.292-A, I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.125 each, in default to undergo R.I. for 30 days. It appears from the order of the trial Magistrate that the case records have been furnished to the petitioner, though the records do not indicate acknowledgement from them. It can be taken that whatever records had been available, were furnished by the trial Magistrate to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that records available them had not been furnished to the petitioners.

(2.) THE aggrieved petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.12 of 1985 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, challenging their conviction and sentence, on the ground that their plea was not voluntary, and it was due to coercion. After elaborate discussion the appellate Judge found that the trial Magistrate had acted on 1.4.1985 itself only on the request of the petitioners, who wanted to �plead guilty� and, therefore, there was no legal impediment for the trial Magistrate having recorded their convictions, on the day subsequent to the arrest of the petitioners. In that view, the appeal was dismissed. THE correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed on each of the petitioners, by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate Court is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr.A.S. Chakravarthi, learned Government Advocate, on all these contentions. He would submit that the petitioners themselves had chosen this course of action and, as such, there was no infirmity, in the trial Court having accepted their plea and finding them guilty as charged. He would further contend that the prejudice alleged to have been caused to the petitioners may, in each case, have to be decided on the peculiar circumstances available, and cannot be made an inviolable rule, in all cases of recording of the plea of the accused on the date of their production in Court.