Who Filed The Case And Why
- Raseen Babu KM, represented by Adv. D. Anil Kumar, filed this criminal revision petition against an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -1, Parappanagadi convicting him u/s 35 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of Public Meetings Act for obstructing a school admission festival procession and assaulting certain volunteers involved.
- The petition claims that the petitioner was convicted of the foregoing offences simply because he pleaded guilty. It is claimed that the Magistrate's procedure was clearly unconstitutional. The detailed procedure outlined in Sections 240 and 241 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes it apparent that a conviction based on a guilty plea is not merely a formality.
What Are The Guidelines
- The charge, specifying the offences alleged against the accused must be framed by the Magistrate.
- This charge has to read and explained to the accused.
- The accused shall be asked if or not he pleads guilty against the offences alleged against him.
- The accused should plead guilty only after understanding the gravity of the offences alleged against him before pleading guilty. It should be in explicit and unambiguous terms.
- The plea in words as accurately as possible must be recorded by the Magistrate.
- The Magistrate should use his discretion considering all relevant factors whether or not the plea should be considered.
- If the Magistrate agrees so, the accused can be convicted and apt punishment imposed.
- A point to note is a monosyllabic 'yes' does not amount to a plea of guilty.
- An accused, who pleaded not guilty at the stage of framing charge can plead guilty at a later stage.
Do you agree with the guidelines issued? Let us know in the comment section below!
Tags : Others