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-
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
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
1995 LawSuit(AP) 481
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
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.
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
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
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
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
