Telangana High Court

N.S. Pavan Neti vs State Of Telangana on 6 December, 2022

Bench: G.Radha Rani

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.393 OF 2019


ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused

aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated

01.09.2018 passed in STC No.18534 of 2018 by the XI Special

Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur, Hyderabad in

sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) days.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused, while

returning from his office on 30.08.2018 was obstructed by the police

and demanded to show his driving licence. The petitioner tried to

show the documents available in digital format, but the police high-

handedly seized the vehicle saying that they would treat it as a case of

'no documents'. On appearing before the Magistrate, the proceedings

were conducted in a group and the court officer asked the group

whether they would agree. When one of the members consented, the

petitioner-accused was also sent to prison for two days even without

hearing and conducting Section 251 Cr.P.C. examination.

Dr.GRR,J

3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner-

accused preferred this revision contending that the conviction and

sentence of two days imprisonment recorded against him was in a very

casual manner, without following the procedure established by law

violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Magistrate ought

to have noticed that the accused did not admit his guilt. The

Magistrate had not put in substance all allegations in terms of Section

251 Cr.P.C. When the petitioner applied for certified copy of his 251

Cr.P.C. examination, the said application was returned on the ground

that it was conducted orally. When the accused admitted his guilt, it

must be available in a proper form. The procedure adopted was not

expected in this country. The petitioner-accused had served the

sentence of two days already, but the conviction and sentence would

give problems to his profession, hence, the petitioner was constrained

to approach this Court and prayed to set aside the judgment of

conviction and sentence against him in STC No.18534 of 2018 on the

file of the XI Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur,

Hyderabad.

Dr.GRR,J

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that no proper

procedure was followed in this case. The charge sheet was filed under

the heading 'Cell phone driving'. The accused was charged for the

offence under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short

'MV Act') for driving dangerously on a public road, but in column

No.2 of the charge sheet it was noted as driving without driving

licence. Section 251 Cr.P.C. examination was not conducted. The

accused had not pleaded guilty. Without even questioning him, he

was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. The

accused was a Software Engineer. He needed to visit various

countries on his profession. If he was not having good record, the

same would be considered negatively against him. Though the

accused had already undergone the sentence of imprisonment, he

preferred this revision to set aside the conviction as it would affect his

professional record in future.

6. Perused the record. The charge sheet would disclose that the

Madhapur Traffic Police, Cyberabad, had filed the same under Section Dr.GRR,J

184 of the MV Act for cell phone driving and mentioned that on

30.08.2018 at 18.20 hours while the Sub Inspector of Police of

Madhapur Traffic Police Station was conducting enforcement against

cell phone driving with the help of Home Guard No.1606, in random

stopped the car of the petitioner-accused bearing No.TS 7 FC 7089

and asked him for his driving licence and as he failed to show the

same, allowing the petitioner to drive the vehicle was not advisable in

view of public safety, as he was not carrying the documents, detained

the vehicle and issued the challan for driving the vehicle without

driving licence.

7. The case was taken cognizance by the XI Special Metropolitan

Magistrate, Kukatpally and numbered as STC 18534 of 2018 on

01.09.2018 and it was recorded that the accused was examined under

Section 251 Cr.P.C. and he pleaded guilty voluntarily for the offence

under Section 184 of the MV Act and as such convicted him under

Section 252 Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for two days.

8. Section 184 of the MV Act reads as follows:

Dr.GRR,J

"184. Driving dangerously.--Whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both."

9. Section 184 of MV Act is pertaining to driving dangerously but

not pertaining to driving without driving licence or cell phone driving.

The violation alleged to have committed by the petitioner-accused was

that he had not shown the driving licence when demanded by the SI of

Police of Madhapur Traffic Police Station. The contention of the

petitioner was that he had shown his driving licence in digital format

but, the same was not accepted by the police. The same was a matter

of contention. The petitioner-accused was alleged to have been

produced before the XI Special Magistrate, Kukatpally. The XI

Special Metropolitan Magistrate also recorded that the charge sheet

was taken on file under Section 184 of the MV Act against the

accused, copies were furnished to him and he was examined under

Section 251 Cr.P.C. and the accused pleaded guilty.

Dr.GRR,J

10. The learned counsel for the accused also placed on record the

application made by him seeking certified copy of the examination of

the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. on 29.03.2019. But, the same

was returned on the same day on the ground that the accused was

examined orally in open court. Without recording the plea of the

accused in writing, convicting him for the offence and sentencing him

to imprisonment for two days, depriving his liberty is against the

procedure established by law. Section 251 Cr.P.C. reads as under:

"251. Substance of accusation to be stated. When in a summons case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge."

11. Even as per Section 251 Cr.P.C. though it was not necessary to

frame a formal charge in a summons-case, particulars of the offence

need to be stated to the accused and he shall be asked whether he

would plead guilty or has any defence to make. Only if he pleads

guilty, the Magistrate shall record the conviction against him. If the

accused had not pleaded guilty, the Magistrate shall hear the

prosecution and take all such evidence as might be produced in

support of the prosecution. There is no record before this court to Dr.GRR,J

show that the accused had pleaded guilty and that his signature was

obtained on such plea. The procedure adopted by the police in filing

the charge sheet and the procedure adopted by the court in recording

his conviction is in violation of the procedure prescribed under law.