O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.984 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kozhikode. The aforesaid case was registered against him by the 2 nd respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V.Act). The allegation against the petitioner is that on 18.10.2019 at 10.20 p.m., he had driven a car bearing registration No.KL-11.BP.6750 in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of alcohol. The F.I.R. was registered on 18.10.2019 and on 9.11.2019, the petitioner appeared through counsel and the counsel pleaded guilty. On the basis of such plea, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.750/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and a fine of

Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 185 of the M.V.Act. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order of convicting the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri. V.V. Surendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that, he has not authorized the lawyer to plead guilty and the instruction given was only to enter appearance on his behalf for defending the matter further. It is also pointed out that, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate for convicting the petitioner was not in tune with the statutory stipulations contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). The learned counsel also places reliance upon the decision of this Court in Raseen Babu K.M. v. State of Kerala

[2021(3)KHC 394].

4. The contention of the learned counsel is that, the learned Magistrate has recorded in the order that, the particulars of the offence were read over to the accused and he has pleaded guilty. However, it is evident from the proceedings itself that the accused was absent and the appearance of the accused was through his counsel. Therefore, the question of reading over the particulars of offence to the accused has not taken place.

5. Section 251 of the Cr.PC mandates that, as soon as the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused of shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or not. Section 252 of the Cr.PC provides that if the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. However, in this case, it is evident that the petitioner was not present before the court at the relevant time and, therefore, the observations in the order that the particulars of the offence was read over to the accused cannot be correct. The petitioner also has a case that, he has not given any instruction to the counsel for pleading guilty. The necessity of compliance of the procedure while arriving at a conviction on the basis of plea of guilty by the court has been considered in Raseen Babu’s case(supra) and it was observed in paragraph 7 as follows:

7. The elaborate procedure prescribed in the above Sections makes it abundantly clear that, conviction of an accused based on the plea of guilty is not an empty formality. The procedure prescribed has to be followed strictly, since acceptance of the plea would result in an accused being convicted without trial. In this regard it is apposite to consider the legal meaning of the word "plead" which is 'to make, deliver, or file any pleading'; 'to conduct the pleadings in a cause'; 'interpose any pleading in a suit which contains allegations of fact,' 'to deliver in a formal manner the defendant's answer to the plaintiff's decl