Kerala High Court
Nitheesh P.M vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2024
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
CRL.R.P.No.1066 of 2024
1
2024:KER:76993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 18TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1066 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2022 IN ST
NO.1714 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I
,PERUMBAVOOR
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
NITHEESH P.M.
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O MANI PERUMALA HOUSE WEST
VENGOLA KARA. ARAKKAPADI, PONJASSERY P.O.
NEDUMALA BHAGOM PERUMBAVOOR,, PIN - 683547
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANU
S.K.PREMRAJ
V.SARITHA
DILU JOSEPH
C.A.ANUPAMAN
T.B.SIVAPRASAD
C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
NEETHU.K.SHAJI
MANJU E.R.
ANANDHU SATHEESH
ALINT JOSEPH
PAUL JOSE
DAINY DAVIS
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SMT.NIMA JACOB, PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P.No.1066 of 2024
2
2024:KER:76993
K.BABU.,J
---------------------
CRL.R.P.No.1066 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2024
ORDER
The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to
the judgment dated 26.03.2022 in S.T.No.1714/2021 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Perumabvoor.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused. He is
alleged to have committed offences punishable under
Sections 279 & 338 IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 181 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The learned Magistrate through a counsel
accepted his plea of guilty and convicted him for the
offences alleged and sentenced to pay fine under different
counts.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
2024:KER:76993
submitted that the petitioner never wanted to plead guilty
and as a matter of fact he wanted to contest the case. It is
submitted that the petitioner never thought that the
counsel would file a memo of appearance and plead guilty
on his behalf. It is further submitted that the petitioner had
not authorized the learned counsel to plead guilty and he
has not even executed any vakalath in favour of the
counsel. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the
plea of guilty stated to have been made on 26.03.2022 was
unauthorised and without the permission of the petitioner.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it
appears from the impugned order that the petitioner
authorised a lawyer to appear and plead on behalf of him.
7. The impugned judgment reads thus:-
"This case is charge sheeted by the Sub
Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor P.S alleging that
the accused had committed offences punishable
under Section 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 & Sec.3, 181 of M.V Act.
2. Accused represented. Copies of records
relied on by the prosecution were furnished through
counsel. Particulars of offence was read over and
2024:KER:76993
explained to the accused, to which he pleaded
guilty through counsel. Plea made by the accused is
voluntarily. Hence it is accepted. Accused is found
guilty. The benevolent provisions of Probation of
Offenders Act is not applicable to the facts of this
case. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-
for the offence u/s 279 of IPC and Rs.1000/- for the
offence punishable u/s 338 of IPC. The accused is
further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1500/- for the
offence u/s 181 of M.V.Act. In default of payment of
fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for
30 days."
8. It is specifically stated in the judgment that the
plea of the accused was recorded through a counsel by
name Adv.Vimal Kumar T.G. The learned Magistrate found
that the plea made by the accused was voluntarily and
hence, he accepted the same and convicted him for the
offences alleged.
9. The specific case of the petitioner is that he had
not authorised the lawyer to plead guilty for and on behalf
of him. He has not even executed a vakalath and
authorised a lawyer to plead guilty. It is contended that the
petitioner wanted to prosecute the case.
2024:KER:76993
10. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
M/s.Manuel Sons Financial Enterprises (P) Ltd vs.
Ramakrishnan & Others (2015 (3) KHC 141), the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that
the counsel concerned has no authority to compromise a
case, confess judgment in the case or make an admission
so as to bind the party and no Court shall accept or act on
such a compromise or confession or admission without
verifying whether the Advocate doing so had been
authorised by the party by executing a vakalathanama.
11. In the present case, it is specifically pleaded that
the revision petitioner had not authorised a lawyer by
executing a vakalathnama to plead guilty of the offences
alleged. The lawyer had no consent or authorisation to
make such a plea. The impugned order does not show
whether the learned Magistrate verified as to the authority
of the lawyer to plead guilty.
12. Having regard to the pleadings raised by the
revision petitioner and the circumstances brought out, this
2024:KER:76993
Court of the view of that the impugned judgment is liable to
be set aside.
In the result,
(i) The Criminal revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment dated 26.03.2022 in
S.T.No.1714/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Perumabvoor stands set aside.
(iii) S.T.No.1714/2021 on the file of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumabvoor is restored to
file.
(iv) The learned Magistrate shall proceed further in
the matter from the stage of recording the plea of the
accused.
(v) The petitioner/accused shall appear before the
Trial Court on 13.11.2024.
Sd/-
K.BABU
JUDGE
bng/10/10/24
