M MANIKYAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner was charged u/s.304-A I.P.C. and under Section 89 read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was produced before the learned Judl. First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad and on his alleged admission he was convicted and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence u/s.304-A I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s.89 read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the revision petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No.52/90 before the learned Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District and as per the judgment dt.23-1-1992, the learned Sessions Judge having confirmed the conviction and sentence u/s.304-A I.P.C., set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence u/s.89 read with Sec.112 M.V. Act and allowed the appeal in part. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence for the offence u/s.304-A I.P.C., the revision petitioner filed the present Crl.Revision case.

(2.) The main contention of Sri B. Krishna Rao, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, is that the procedure adopted by the learned magistrate while trying the case is not correct and that he has not followed the procedure prescribed as per the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief the 'Code') or the Criminal Rules of Practice (in brief 'the Rules'). He further submits that the alleged admission of the accused is, in fact, not an admission and the same shall not be taken as an admission.

(3.) Before proceeding further it is to be noted that the learned trial Magistrate finding that the revision petitioner has admitted the offence, held him guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.