1984 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 26th January, 1984. This revision application under section 45/430 arises out of the order, dated 30th December, 1981 passed on the plea of guilt the present appli cant whereby the Additional City Magistrate Latifabad, Hyderabad convic ted him under section 304-A, P. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 3,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for six months. He has also been ordered to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. The applicant against that order filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge Hyderabad who dismissed the appeal as not being maintainable but reduced the sentence from one year to six months. He also maintained the fine of Rs. 2,000 as ordered in the earlier judgment, or in default of fine further to undergo R. I. for six months. He has ordered that compensation should not be paid by the applicant and has set aside the order of compensation. Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant was challaned on 17th November, 1981, by Latifabad Police Station, for trial before Addi tional City Magistrate Latifabad, Hyderabad under sections 279 and 304-A, P. P. C. The allegation against the applicant is that on 13th August, 1981 at about 8-20 p. m. he was driving motor-cycle rashly and negligently and caused injury to a boy Abdul Rahman who subsequently died. The formal charge was framed against the applicant/accused on 30th December, 1981 to which he voluntarily pleaded guilty and consequently the Additional City Magistrate Latifabad, Hyderabad convicted him. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has challenged the conviction on the ground that it was recorded without taking any evidence and the applicant denied that he pleaded guilty. It is further argued that the provisions of section 243, Cr. P. C. have not been complied with, therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. He has relied upon the case reported in 1971 P Cr. L J

658. On examination the record of the case I find that in the instant case the provisions of section 243, Cr. P. C. have not been complied with According to section 243, Cr. P. C. the admission of the accused shall be recorded as early as possible in the words used by him and then he would be convicted on the basis of his plea. In this case charge under section 304-A/279, P. P. C. was framed and plea of guilt recorded by the Additional City Magistrate as under:- "Accused Mohiuddin son of Shahabuddin accused pleads guilty and admits that it was accident happened by him." The learned Magistrate has not recorded the words used by the appli cant in his plea of guilt, Applicant has also stated that it was an accident. He has not admitted to have driven his motor-cycle rashly or negligently due to which the offence was committed. Furthermore, the Additional City Magistrate has erred in not convicting him under section 279, P. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction has ordered that applicant should-not pay the compensation to the heirs of the deceased which was imposed on the applicant. The answer given by the applicant on the charge is not recorded by the Magistrate. In considering the plea of guilt which is really not so, the Court below in my view has committed, a clear irregularity which is open to correction in the revisional juris diction of this Court under section 439, Cr. P. C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result petition is accepted. The conviction and the sentence are set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial Court with directions to proceed with the case and decide on merits according to law. Case remanded.