Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sivarasan @ Sivaraj S/o Thiru. Marappan - Appellant
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kattoor Police Station - Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 974 of 2025
Decided On : 03-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D. Veerasekharan
For the Respondent: A. Gopinath
The failure to adhere to procedural requirements under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. renders a conviction invalid, emphasizing the necessity of a fair trial and proper communication of charges to the accused.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 - Section 4(1) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 251 - Conviction for affixing a poster without proper legal process - The petitioner's conviction was based on unproven allegations of pleading guilty without evidence of his appearance in court. The trial court's decision was deemed unconstitutional due to failure to follow mandated legal procedures ensuring fair trial and proper accusation presentation - Conviction set aside as unsustainable. (Paras 2, 8, 10)
(B) Fair Trial - The obligation of the court to inform the accused of allegations and ensure that their plea is properly recorded - The importance of adherence to legal processes in safeguarding the rights of the accused was emphasized to avoid adverse career implications. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for attempting to affix a poster criticizing the government, leading to his fine and conviction under the Tamil Nadu Open Places Act. He claimed ignorance of the FIR and was not present at the trial.
Findings of Court:
The trial court proceedings were invalid due to non-compliance with Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., leading to wrongful punishment.
Issues: Whether the accused was properly informed of the charge and had a fair chance to plead.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that a fair trial was compromised as due process was not followed, establishing a precedent for the necessity of transparent legal proceedings.
Result: Revision petition allowed; trial court's order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details regarding sivarasan's case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments about the petitioner's awareness of the trial. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal implications on trial proceedings and pages of conviction. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. importance of fair trial adherence, section 251 cr.p.c. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. reversal of previous convicting order. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred as against the order dated 12.03.2019 passed in S.T.C.No.3018 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore thereby convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.03.2019 the petitioner attempted to affix a poster condemning the Government of India for not releasing the convicts involved in former Prime Minister's Assassination case. Therefore, the respondent police registered a FIR against the petitioner in Cr.No.304 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. After completion of investigation the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.3018 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. On 12.03.2019 the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 and imposed a fine of Rs.100/-. Aggrieved by the same the present Criminal Revision has been filed.
3. Mr.D.Veerasekharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even according to the case of the prosecution while attempting to affix the poster, the petitioner was caught hold and the FIR was registered against him. However the petitioner did not have any knowledge that the respondent has registered the FIR. That apart the petitioner never appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore on 12.03.2019 and never pleaded guilty. Only for statistical purpose the respondent themselves paid the fine of Rs.100/- as if the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and admitted guilty. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that now the petitioner was selected for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Police Department. In view of the conviction made as against the petitioner he could not be able to join in the said post.
4. Mr.A.Gopinath, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner was fully aware of the registration of the FIR and had admitted the same before the Trial Court, where he also pleaded guilty. Therefore the trial Court imposed the fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act , 1959 and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent.
6. The respondent police registered the FIR in Cr.No.304/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, alleging that the petitioner attempted to affix a poster consisting some allegation as against the Government of India for not releasing the convicts involved in former Prime Minister's Assassination case. However, it is learnt that now all the convicts involved in the said case are released by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7. The specific contention of the petitioner is that he had absolutely no knowledge about the registration of the final report filed against him and hence he did not report before the trial Court to admit his guilty. Only for the statistical purpose the respondent police filed the final report and the same has been ordered as if the petitioner appeared and pleaded guilty by payment of fine of Rs.100/-.
8. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the peti
