LAWS(APH)-1995-10-75

C SUBBARAYUDU Vs. STATE OF A P

Decided On October 11, 1995
C.SUBBARAYUDU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The expedition with which the case has been disposed of gratified me to feel that we are not far off to that ideal State of, ready-made justice. Alas it is not to be.

(2.) Strange as it may seen, on the same day of 8-7-1992, the offence under Section 160, IPC has been taken on file, posted before the Court, summons issued to the petitioner and other accused, and plea of guilt recorded and passed the sentence on the petitioner. The petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 days. The grievance of the petitioner in this Crl.R.C. is that he did not plead guilty at all and even if the accusation is taken as true the offence of Affray is not made, out.

(3.) The accusation against the petitioner and others is to the effect that on 26-6-1992 the accused of 'A' party and 'B' party, containing two persons each, were abusing and kicking each other causing breach of peace. The alleged 'plea of quilty' by the petitioner and accused No. 2 was not recorded by the Spl. Judl. II Class Magistrate. Under Section 252, Cr.P.C. a Magistrate shall record the plea of guilty as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused. No such attempt has been made by the learned Magistrate. This is a mandatory requirement, violation of which renders the conviction illegal. Before convicting an accused on the basis of "Plea of guilty', a Magistrate should take the following precautions. He should ascertain whether all the copies of the documents on which prosecution relies have been supplied to the accused. Thereafter sufficient time has to be allowed for perusing them. He should satisfy himself that the allegations in the accusation do constitute an offence. He should question the accused on all the ingredients of the offence to find out whether the accused understood the nature of the offence. The plea of guilty should be recorded in the words of the accused. He should find that the plea of guilty was free and voluntary. The provisions of the Section are mandatory as held in Mahant Kaushalya Das vs. State of Madras, Podan vs. State of Kerala explains the offence of Affray as a fight i.e., a bilateral act in which two parties participate and it will not amount to an affray when the party who is assaulted submits to the assault without resistance. Again, there must be a definite disturbance of the public peace due to the fight in the public place to make the offence affray. Mere causing inconvenience to the public is not sufficient. These necessary ingredients are lacking in the accusation. The contention urged before me is that the petitioner has not pleaded guilty, but only stated the occurrence, of an incident involving himself and accused 3 and 4. In the absence of the record of the words of the petitioner it is not possible to hold that the petitioner pleaded guilty to the offence. Other requirements, stated above, have also not been observed in this case, by the Magistrate. The case snacks of undue haste. The order passed by the learned Magistrate therefore, suffers from serious lacunae and has to be set aside and the petitioner acquitted.