THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.194 OF 2019

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-

accused seeking to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 09.01.2019 in S.T.C.No.232 of 2019 CON No.44 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of Second Class (Morning Court), Sangareddy (for short ‘the learned trial Court’), registered for the offences under Sections 3(3) of the Town Nuisance Act and 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

02. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. Perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.2018 at

17:27 the Police found the petitioner-accused driving the vehicle bearing No. AP 23 AM 1478, otherwise than on near or left side of the road without insurance at PR Pally X Road, Sangareddy. Thus, he committed the above alleged offences. The learned trial Court, on admission of guilt by the petitioner-

accused, by way of impugned Judgment convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) day for the offence under Section 3(3) of the Town Nuisance Act and further sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) days and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

04. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner-accused preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offences. The Police filed the charge sheet without proper investigation and there is no incriminating material collected by the Police by way of investigation. The petitioner-accused never drove the said vehicle, as alleged by the Police. The petitioner-accused had insurance for his vehicle as on the date of alleged offence. The contents of the charge sheet do not contain the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offences. All the allegations levelled against the petitioner- accused false and baseless. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate failed to record the plea of guilty as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused, as required under Section 252 Cr.P.C.

06. With the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused while praying to set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence by acquitting the petitioner-accused, he relied upon a decision rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.Subbrayudu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1995 LawSuit(AP) 481, wherein it was held at Paragraph No.3 that:

“3. The accusation against the petitioner and other is to the effect that on 26-6-1992 the accused of 'A' party and 'B' party, containing two persons each, were abusing and kicking each other causing breach of peace. The alleged plea of guilty, by the petitioner and accused No. 2 was not recorded by the Spl. Judl. II Class Magistrate. Under Section 252 Cr.P.C. a Magistrate shall record the plea of guilty as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused. No such attempt has been made by the learned Magistrate. This is a mandatory requirement, violation of which renders the conviction illegal. Before convicting an accused on the basis of 'plea of guilty', a Magistrate should take the following precautions. He should ascertain whether all the copies of the documents on which prosecution relies have been supplied to the accused. Thereafter sufficient time has to be allowed for perusing them. He should satisfy himself that the

allegations in the accusation do constitute an offence. He should question the accused on all the ingredients of the offence to find out whether the accused understood the nature of the offence. The plea of guilty should be recorded in the words of the accused. He should find that the plea of guilty was free and voluntary. The provisions of the Section are