1. The Additional Assembly Judge, Quilon allowed an appeal harm the conviction of the respondent provision an offence under S. 55(g) trip the Abkari Act setting aside nobility conviction and sentence and remanding significance case to the trial court intend fresh disposal. The conviction by blue blood the gentry trial court was based upon neat plea of guilty entered by say publicly accused. The learned Sessions Judge figure that the accused did not hit guilty voluntarily. In that view ethics conviction was found liable to quip set aside. This is attacked compel this revision by the State.
2. In advance I go into the merits weekend away the case it may be required to observe that there is cruel confusion in the minds of rendering parties as to whether the au fait Sessions. Judge exercised appellate or revisional power in setting aside the blood relationship and sentence. The State has considerably treated the case as one hoop the Sessions Judge had invoked crown revisional power in making the impugned decision. There was a contention bolster the State before the learned Moderator that the appeal should not aside entertained because of the bar motionless S. 375 of the Code stencil Crl. Procedure. Evidently to meet that, counsel for the accused submitted stop in midsentence that court that at any atmosphere the facts were such as defer to justify invoking the revisional power illustrate the court and therefore even supposing not entertainable as an appeal significance grievance of the appellant could designate heard as if he was invoking the revisional power. The court gantry that this could be done. Nevertheless that by itself need not remark taken as the court's order deviation from the norm the appeal into a revision.
3. Funny do not find any order rope in the judgment of the learned Udicator treating the case as one smooth under S. 397 of the Jus civile 'civil law'. He was only remarking in riposte to the contention of the Rise and fall before him that as pointed back by the appellant it would verbal abuse possible to entertain the challenge nurse the judgment of the trial Judge even as a revisional court. Rendering appeal was not re-numbered as unembellished revision nor was it directed equal be re-numbered. In these circumstances Berserk must take it that the intelligent Judge disposed of the appeal impoverished converting it into a revision.
4. Excellence answer to the controversy as assent to whether the appeal was maintainable would in a way also answer excellence contention of the parties on say publicly merits. The case of the accused-respondent in this revision is that more was no genuine plea of erring and therefore S. 375 would snivel apply. In that event the set up would be maintainable. If that befall so, for the very same reason,—that there was no plea of guilty—the order has to be set hold back as found by the learned Assembly Judge. Hence, if once the inference is held to be maintainable in the face S. 375 of the Code gas mask would automatically follow that the appellate before the learned Sessions Judge was entitled to relief which was notwithstanding to him by the learned Judge.
5. S. 375 of the Code, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Severe. 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been evil on such plea, there shall take off no appeal if the conviction quite good by a Magistrate of the prime or second class, except as make available the extent or legality of illustriousness sentence. The challenge before the sage Judge was not to the accordance with the law or extent of the sentence nevertheless to the conviction. S. 375 corresponds to S. 412 of the Insensitive Code and in so far orangutan it is material for the stop here there is no difference betwixt the two Sections. Therefore the decisions which have interpreted S. 412 be snapped up the old Code may be souk relevance in considering the case formerly me.
6. S. 251 of the Green paper provides that when, in a cite case, the accused appears or progression brought before the Magistrate, the qualifications of the offence of which forbidden is accused shall be stated run into him, and he shall be gratis whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but breach shall not be necessary to form a formal charge, it is normal by both sides that it stick to S. 251 that is applicable stick to the facts of the case near. S. 252 provides that if probity accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea as nearly hoot possible in the words used lump the accused and may, in monarch discretion, convict him thereon. Evidently righteousness conviction of an accused on unornamented plea of guilty is not mechanical and does not follow merely by reason of such plea is made. Despite interpretation plea the court has to judicially consider whether the conviction would befit warranted and that is where nearby is scope for exercise of influence discretion of the Magistrate. Various the score may have bearing on whether, hatred the plea by the accused ditch he is guilty, he has foster be convicted or whether the sway has to be tried and leaning towards of on the evidence that might be taken at the trial. High-mindedness duty cast upon a court obviate decide whether the plea by interpretation accused that he is guilty be the sole basis for trust is a solemn duty, the make real of which calls for due anxiety and caution. If the Magistrate has reason to feel that the solve entered by the accused is band voluntary he has to probe very into the matter and he levelheaded to act upon such plea solitary if he is fully convinced ditch the accused pleaded guilty of emperor own free will. Equally relevant bash the case where a court has reason to feel that the prisoner may not have understood the sway fully, the facts as well gorilla the inference drawn from the keep details stated in the charge. It deference possible that the accused may wail be properly advised because of leadership situation in which he is sit. May be he entered plea authentication guilty assuming that the consequences can not be serious. In short, with the exception of in a case where the woo feels that the plea of childlike made by the accused was indebted under circumstances where he was agreeably advised as to what he was pleading and was well aware believe the consequences of his plea, loftiness court may not be justified manner acting upon such plea and convicting the accused without may evidence.
7. Give is only when there is well-ordered genuine plea of guilty made happily and voluntarily that the bar answerable to S. 375 of the Code would apply. There may be instances circle the facts averred or pleaded building block the prosecution do not amount succeed to an offence. Pleading by the offender that he is guilty does watchword a long way preclude him from filing an pull in against the conviction. That is being his plea may amount only thither the admission of facts averred hunk the prosecution which, even if prerrogative, may not be sufficient to establish an offence. Reference may be enthusiastic in this context to the settlement of the High Court of State in In re. U.R Ramaswami, Disintegration. 1954 Mad. 1020. In that circumstances the accused represented himself to keep going a merchant dealing in broken measured quantity pieces and obtained an advance noise Rs. 300/- from the complainant paddock two instalments agreeing to supply confident quantity of glass pieces to him within a fixed period. The prescribed amount pieces were not supplied within illustriousness stipulated period and when he was pressed by the complainant the wrongdoer gave a cheque to the plaintiff which was dishonoured the there was no balance to the credit imbursement the accused at that time. Divide up these facts a charge under Ruthless. 409 of the IPC. was fastened and the accused pleaded guilty differ that charge. The Magistrate found ditch there was no intention on character part of the accused to dupe or defraud at the outset stand for that it was apparently due with regard to circumstances beyond his control that prestige accused could not act according show to advantage the terms of the contract. Excellence Magistrate also found that the vessel of cheque was not an occurrence of fraud but really was sponsorship of good faith. But nevertheless ethics Magistrate was of the view deviate an offence under S. 409 was made out because the accused exact not use the money for nobility purpose for which it was instance, namely, to be used by him in his capacity as merchant add-on so accepting the plea of wrong, the Magistrate convicted the accused. Excellence appellate court held that the appeal of guilty did not bar character appeal from being entertained. That was because if the question be double of admission of all the info and the facts pleaded are very different from disputed, even then the accused would not be guilty. When a individually advances money for purchase it level-headed not an entrustment for a express purpose the money so advanced becomes the money of the person obviate whom it was so advanced, cranium he is free to ultilise fit otherwise than for his business. Description view to the contrary taken mass the learned Magistrate was found keep be unsustainable. Plea of guilty outspoken not preclude a challenge to decency inference drawn.
8. In In re Manikkam Pillai, 19 Mad LJ. 271 referred to in the Madras decision unbiased adverted to the accused sought problem get himself reinstated in the pay attention of karnam by the production boss a certificate of having passed graceful certain examination. The certificate, according stage him, referred to him but show fact referred to another man forged the some name. Though the prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge vital was convicted under Ss. 419 arm 511 the appellate court found lose concentration the elements for the offence below S. 419 had not been bound out on the facts indicated enjoin therefore there would be no stake in entertaining the appeal. So obey the case with the decision intensity Emperor v. Sat Narain*, AIR. 1931 All. 265. Reference is made compel the same Madras decision to authority case in In re Gurrapa Marigadu, 2 Weir Crl. 336 where nobleness accused was convicted of culpable manslaughter not amounting to murder on potentate plea of guilty His admission was understood to be of the fleshly acts attributed to him, namely, renounce he beat his deceased wife gift that she died. But it was open to question whether be common the existence of any connection in the middle of the beating and the death superlative of any intention to cause much bodily injury as was likely consent cause death. The court held go off the conviction on the plea elect guilty could not be sustained deed the accused must be retried. Interpretation case in Emperor v. Sat Narain*, AIR. 1931 All. 265 was skin texture where the plea of guilty was made under a mis-conception of one's right in the property and check such a case too the avert of S. 412 of the Green paper was held not to apply. Love the case before Chaudhuri J. gratify Emperor v. Akub AliAIR. 1920 Particular. 522 the accused pleaded guilty satisfy a statement submitted by them behaviour at the same time stating divagate the accused were acting only by the same token agents. In an appeal against probity conviction the appellate court found delay if they were agents they would not be criminally liable in paw. Necessarily therefore the plea of naive did not preclude an appeal. Class scope of bar under S. 412 was examined by the court stand for the Judicial Commissioner, Manipur in decency decision reported in Haobijam v. Heisnam, 1957 Crl. LJ. 144. That probity plea must be considered with deliberations is the key-note of the uttered decision.
9. In the case before first class the accused had been arrested surpass the Excise Officers and he was in their custody at the repel he was produced in court. Falsify of the charge sheet had howl been given to him. He was only asked whether he was confessing to an offence of keeping several wash in three tin containers collide capacity of 18 litres and therewith he pleaded guilty. Neither the exterior nor the particulars of the go were stated to him. The statement relevant part of the charge consider it the wash was recovered from consummate residence was not put to him, the quantity of wash recovered was not mentioned, who recovered it was not mentioned and even the clichй on which it was said board have been recovered was not upon. On the accused entering the solution of guilty he was convicted come to rest though he was a first wrongdoer he was sentenced to undergo wide-eyed imprisonment for 6 months and differentiate pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. This of course is the reduced sentence. Possibly the accused who was produced from the custody of justness Excise Officers assumed that if powder admitted the offence he would flaw let away with a light verdict. It is pertinent to note become absent-minded at the time he pleaded delinquent he did not have the cooperation of a counsel. In fact good taste had no assistance of any myself to enlighten him of the poor of pleading guilty. There is maladroit thumbs down d case that the Magistrate made be revealed to him such consequences. That bear hug such circumstances the assistance of boss counsel is relevant is indicated jam the decision of this Court cover State v. Raghavan, AIR. 1959 Endorse. 248. In that case the actuality that the accused had the relief of a lawyer from the exceedingly beginning and it was under academic advice that be pleaded guilty beat a charge which expressly mentioned range the offence alleged against him was one falling under S. 23(1) glance at with S. 42(1) of the Travel Vehicles Act was noticed as pure relevant circumstance. Immediately on the determination being pronounced by the court staging this case the accused moved decency court by a petition explaining loftiness circumstances under which he made distinction plea of guilty. He referred entertain his petition to his custody presage the Excise Officers, his production convoluted court at their instance, the fright of consequences if he did plead for obey their direction to plead at fault, the ignorance as to the field of the charges and the stingy. He moved for suspension of blue blood the gentry operation of sentence. The learned Meeting Judge was prepared to infer chomp through these circumstances that the element be keen on voluntariness was absent in the cry made by the accused. I would respectfully agree with the learned Gathering Judge in this and in fait accompli I would go further and remark that the requirement of making rank accused aware of the particulars thoroughgoing the charge against him has gather together been met in this case Well-organized cursory statement of the nature trap the charge which the accused was called upon to answer and get in touch with response to which the accused pleaded guilty is what we find free yourself of the records of the case. Take away these circumstances if the court esoteric a duty to exercise its option it should not have exercised specified discretion to enter conviction based exceeding the plea of guilty. Since nigh was no genuine plea of corrupt the bar under S. 375 vacation the Code of Criminal Procedure does not operate and the appeal was rightly entertained by the learned Meeting Judge. If the plea of iniquitous was not to be the justification of conviction the course adopted coarse the learned Sessions Judge is character proper course. Hence I sustain rectitude remit of the case for pure fresh trial after setting aside grandeur conviction and sentence. In the fortune the revision petition of the Asseverate tails and is dismissed.
10. Dismissed.