Telangana High Court
Byagari Ganesh vs The Statae Of Telangana on 27 June, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
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- 2 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 3 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 1, 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 1 1995 LawSuit(AP) 481 4 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 mandatory as held in Mahant Kaushalya Das v. State of Madras ; Podan v. State of Kerala 1962 1 Cri LJ 339 explains the offence of Affrary as a fight i.e., a bilateral act in which two parties participate and it will not amount to an affray when the party who is assaulted submits to the assault without resistance. Again, there must be a definite disturbance of the public peace due to the fight in the public place to make the offence affray, mere causing inconvenience to the public is not sufficient. These necessary ingredients are lacking in the accusation. The contention urged before me is that the petitioner has not pleaded guilty, but only stated the occurrence, of an inicident involving himself and accused 3 and 4. In the absence of the record of the words of the petitioner it is not possible to hold that the petitioner pleaded guilty to the offence. Other, requirements, stated above, have also not been observed in this case, by the Magistrate. The case smacks of undue haste. The order passed by the learned Magistrate therefore, suffers from serious lacunae and has to be set aside and the petitioner acquitted."
07. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent contended that the petitioner-accused himself admitted the commission of offence and there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere 5 with the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.
08. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract Sections 3(3) of the Town Nuisance Act and 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which reads as under:
"Section 3(3) of the Town Nuisance Act: Whoever without reasonable excuse and so as to cause danger or obstruction to any person shall drive, drag or push any vehicle otherwise than on the near or left side of the road.
Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act: Driving uninsured vehicle - Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 146 shall be punishable [for the first offence] with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine [of two thousand rupees,], or with both [and for a subsequent offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine of four thousand rupees, or with both."
09. A mere reading of the above provisions of law, gives an understanding that if any person causes danger or obstruction to any person by driving his vehicle otherwise than on the near or left side of the road, without there being any insurance to the said vehicle, he is liable for punishment as prescribed under law.
6
10. As seen from the impugned Judgment, it is mentioned that the substance of accusation was explained to the petitioner-accused and that he pleaded guilty voluntarily, for which, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused for the above alleged offences.
11. Whereas the case of the petitioner-accused is that he never pleaded guilty and that the learned trial Court, without posing any questions, upon its own recording, convicted and sentenced him. In the present scenario, it is apt to refer Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:
"Section 252 of Code of Criminal Procedure:
Conviction on plea of guilty - 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."
12. A glance of impugned Judgment discloses that the alleged plea of guilty by the petitioner-accused was not recorded by the Magistrate as required under Section 252 of Cr.P.C. It is mandatory for a Magistrate to record the plea of guilty as nearly as possible in the words used by the petitioner-accused. Before convicting an accused on the basis of 'plea of guilty', a Magistrate should take the following 7 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. In the case on hand, the procedure as contemplated under Section 252 of Code of Criminal Procedure, was not followed by the learned Magistrate. Violation of such mandatory requirement renders the conviction as 'illegal'.
13. Furthermore, on a careful scrutiny of charge sheet averments, it appears that except photographs of the parked vehicle, there is no sufficient incriminating material to show that the petitioner-accused was 'driving' the said vehicle otherwise than on the near or left side of the road. The record further discloses that there was a valid and effective insurance to the vehicle bearing No. AP 23 AM 1478 bearing 8 Policy No. 015797422700 for the period from 12:37 hours on 05.02.2018 to midnight of 04.02.2019. Therefore, all the allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused are false and baseless. The required material ingredients for constituting the alleged offences under Sections 3(3) of the Town Nuisance Act and 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act are not made out against the petitioner-accused. Therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused is not tenable under law.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned trial Court has failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also failed to satisfy himself that the allegations in the charge sheet do constitute an offence or not, which amounts to gross illegality and irregularity. In that view of the matter, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court by way of impugned Judgment, is liable to be set aside.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned Judgment dated 09.01.2019 in S.T.C.No.232 of 2019 CON No.44 of 2018 9 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of Second Class (Morning Court), Sangareddy. Consequently, the petitioner- accused is acquitted for the offences under Sections 3(3) of the Town Nuisance Act and 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the petitioner-accused.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Dated: 27-JUN-2025 KHRM