Mahendra Verman, Dinakaran and Reddy vs State by Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Town P.S.

Padmini Jesudurai, J.—The accused in S.T.C. No. 1011 of 1992, 1012 of 1992 and 1013 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyampadi, invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seek to quash their conviction for an offence under S.75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act.

Three separate charge sheets, one against each of the Petitioners, were filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyampadi, for an offence under S.75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, in that on 21-4-1992, the Petitioners behaved in an indecent manner in a public place and caused disturbance to the public. The cases were taken on file in S.T.C. No. 1011 of 1992, 1012 of 1992 and 1013 of 1992 respectively, and the Petitioners questioned. All the Petitioners pleaded guilty and finding their plea to be voluntary, the learned Magistrate accepted their plea and convicted them for the above offence and imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- on each of the Petitioner. The Petitioner paid the fine on the same day. The above conviction and sentence are challenged in these applications.

Thiru R. Shanmughasundaram, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the convictions are illegal as being contrary to the settled legal principle that S. 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act is a cognisable offence and there has to be a full investigation, including recording of statements of witnesses u/s 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, supply of all these investigation records to the accused and after supply, an interval of at least one day to enable the accused to go through the papers and to decide whether to plead guilty or not and only thereafter the accused were to be questioned as to whether they were guilty or not.

The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Chinnaswamy, In re 1972 L.W. (Crl.) 146 and pointed out that in the instant case, according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 21-4-1992 at about 1:00 P.M., the Petitioners arrested at the same time, charge sheet filed on the same day, the case takes on file on the same day and the accused questioned and convicted on the same day. There were no records of investigation and no copies of documents had been furnished to the Petitioners. This rendered the whole trial illegal.

The learned Public Prosecutor was also heard.

Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act is a cognizable offence. The Respondent, therefore, is bound to investigate into the case record, statement of witnesses u/s 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the copies of these statements have to be furnished to the accused, This has not been done in the instant case. Further we find that the charge sheet has been filed on the very day when the occurrence is said to have taken place. The place of the accused has been obtained on the same day and their plea of guilty accepted on the same day. This Court has repeatedly laid down that at least one day''s time should be given the supply of prosecution records to the accused and before the plea of the accused is recorded. This assumes much importance in a case where the accused had pleaded guilty and the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused on their plea. In view of the above violations of well settled proposition of law, the convictions cannot be sustained. The convictions and sentence are therefore set aside and the cases are remanded to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyampadi for trial and disposal according to law. The fine shall be refunded.