IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 18TH ASWINA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1066 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2022 IN ST NO.1714 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I ,PERUMBAVOOR REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

NITHEESH P.M.

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O MANI PERUMALA HOUSE WEST VENGOLA KARA. ARAKKAPADI, PONJASSERY P.O.

NEDUMALA BHAGOM PERUMBAVOOR,, PIN - 683547 BY ADVS. C.S.MANU S.K.PREMRAJ V.SARITHA DILU JOSEPH C.A.ANUPAMAN T.B.SIVAPRASAD C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR NEETHU.K.SHAJI MANJU E.R.

ANANDHU SATHEESH ALINT JOSEPH PAUL JOSE DAINY DAVIS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SMT.NIMA JACOB, PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

K.BABU.,J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CRL.R.P.No.1066 of 2024 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 10th day of October, 2024

ORDER

The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 26.03.2022 in S.T.No.1714/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumabvoor.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 279 & 338 IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The learned Magistrate through a counsel accepted his plea of guilty and convicted him for the offences alleged and sentenced to pay fine under different counts.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner never wanted to plead guilty and as a matter of fact he wanted to contest the case. It is submitted that the petitioner never thought that the counsel would file a memo of appearance and plead guilty on his behalf. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not authorized the learned counsel to plead guilty and he has not even executed any vakalath in favour of the counsel. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the plea of guilty stated to have been made on 26.03.2022 was unauthorised and without the permission of the petitioner.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it appears from the impugned order that the petitioner authorised a lawyer to appear and plead on behalf of him.

7. The impugned judgment reads thus:-

“This case is charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor P.S alleging that the accused had committed offences punishable under Section 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Sec.3, 181 of M.V Act.

2. Accused represented. Copies of records relied on by the prosecution were furnished through counsel. Particulars of offence was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded guilty through counsel. Plea made by the accused is voluntarily. Hence it is accepted. Accused is found guilty. The benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence u/s 279 of IPC and Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable u/s 338 of IPC. The accused is further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1500/- for the offence u/s 181 of M.V.Act. In default of payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for

30 days.”

8. It is specifically stated in the judgment that the plea of the accused was recorded through a counsel by name Adv.Vimal Kumar T.G. The learned Magistrate found that the plea made by the accused was voluntarily and hence, he accepted the same and convicted him for the offences alleged.

9. The specific case of the petitioner is that he had not authorised the lawyer to plead guilty for and on behalf of him. He has not even executed a vakalath and authorised a lawyer to plead guilty. It is contended that the petitioner wanted to prosecute the case.

10. Rely