N.K. Balakrishnan, J.

1. The petitioner was charged for offences under sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. When he appeared before court, he pleaded guilty. Since the plea was found to be made by the accused voluntarily, his plea was accepted and the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty and convicted him of those offences and he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for fifteen days and a fine of Rs.500/-for the offence under section 338 of IPC. Besides, he was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence under section 279 of IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under section 337 of IPC.

2. The appellant filed appeal before the Sessions Judge contending that he was not aware of the consequence of the plea of guilt made by him and that he was not told that he would be sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. What is required under section 251 of Cr.P.C. is that when the accused appears in a summons case the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. The contention that the petitioner was unaware of the consequence of the plea was rightly discountenanced by the learned Sessions Judge. It was not a petty case. He was aware of the fact that the case against him is that he, as the driver, drove the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and caused simple hurt and also grievous hurt to the victims. The contention that he was under the impression that he would be let off, on payment of fine only, is also unacceptable. The punishment prescribed for the offence under section 338 of IPC is imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/-or with both.

4. The contention that the Magistrate could have sentenced the petitioner only with fine, as the accused pleaded guilty, is also untenable. It is not a case of plea bargaining. The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out that the appellant did not file any affidavit stating that he did not understand the particulars of the charge read over to him or that he was not aware of the consequence of the plea of guilt made by him. It was also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the statement of the accused, recorded by the learned Magistrate, would show that before imposing sentence the appellant was asked whether he had anything to say about the sentence. Though the appellant pleaded for mercy, it appears, considering the fact that the offences include section 338 of IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

5. The contention that there was a practice in the Magistrate's court sentencing such accused involved in accident cases only with fine and that is why the petitioner happened to plead guilty is also unacceptable. This court and the apex court, on several occasions, deprecated the practice of awarding only flea bite sentence, when vehicular traffic is registering galloping growth. If such rash or reckless drivers are let off by sentencing them only to fine, it would have no deterrent effect. The judicial discretion is a "discretion which is informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system". The court cannot turn Nelson's eye to the imperative of awarding the sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence; especially taking note of the severity of rashness, the degree of carelessness and also the seriousness of the consequences which followed. The Magistrate cannot overlook the provision contained in section 354 (4) of Cr.P.C. which provides that when a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, the court shall record its reasons for awarding such a sentence. That should c