The judgment of conviction based on the plea of guilty was against Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law.

This criminal revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C by the injured/de-facto complainant questioning the legality of the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam dated 09.11.2005 made in C.C.No.389/2005 convicting the accused No.1 and 3 to 6 therein, who figured as respondents 2 and 4 to 7 in the revision case for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323 IPC based on the plea of guilty made by them and the second accused, who figures as third respondent in the criminal revision case for offences punishable under sections 147 and 325 IPC based on his plea of guilty on the ground that there was an abuse of process of court, in so far as, according to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer had chosen to file a charge-sheet for simple offences, whereas there were sufficient materials to make out a prima-facie case for a graver offence, namely an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the criminal revision case that though there were sufficient materials to show that the respondents 2 to 7 herein (A1 to A6) made an attempt on the life of the petitioner and caused him simple and grievous injuries in such an attempt, the Investigating Officer chose to submit a final report alleging commission of lesser offences triable by the Judicial Magistrate and thus paved the way for the escape of the respondents 2 to 7 from being prosecuted for an offence exclusively triable by a Sessions court.

3. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the haste in which the case was concluded by the learned Judicial Magistrate by convicting the accused persons accepting their plea of guilty, will amply demonstrate the clandestine method used by the Investigating officer to protect the respondents 2 to 7 from being prosecuted for a sessions offence.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 7 contended that there was no wrong in the procedure adopted by the learned Judicial Magistrate convicting the respondents 2 to 7 herein for the offences alleged in the final report based on their plea of guilty and that if at all the petitioner had any grievance over the submission of the final report, he should have very well filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C invoking the inherent powers of the high court rather than filing a criminal revision case against the judgment of conviction pronounced and the order of sentenced passed by the trial court.

5. As an answer to the above said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 7, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate, without application of mind to the materials placed before him in the form of final report and other documents accompanying the final report, especially the wound certificate, mechanically took the case on file for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323 IPC against respondent No.2 and 4 to 7 and for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 325 IPC against the respondent No.3 and that the legality of such order taking cognizance of the case could be challenged by invoking the revisional powers of the High Court.

6. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming that the order taking cognizance of the case by the Magistrate and the judgment of conviction pronounced based on plea of guilty cannot be challenged by way of a revision, the legality of the sentence awarded by the trial court can be questioned in a revision alleging inadequacy of sentence on the ground of the sentence being not in consonance with the penal provision, as the mandatory punishment has not been awarded.

7. In this case, accused No.1 and 3 to 6 (respondent no.2 and 4 to 7) were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323 IPC. Both the offences are punishable with imp