The High Court of Telangana acquitted an individual who was convicted by a trial court for driving a motorbike without insurance and causing public nuisance, citing the conviction’s failure to follow proper legal procedure.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi on Friday overturned the lower court’s order from January 9, 2019, where it sentenced the individual to undergo simple imprisonment for one day for the offence under Section 3(3) of the Town Nuisance Act and further sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two days and imposed a fine of Rs 1,000 for the offence under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, based on what it recorded as an admission of guilt.
The case dates back to December 26, 2018, in Sangareddy town, where the police alleged that the petitioner was found driving a vehicle on the wrong side of the road and without valid insurance.
The petitioner had contended that he never pleaded guilty and that the trial court “without posing any questions, upon its own recording, convicted and sentenced him.” The petitioner 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 (Code of Criminal Procedure).”
“It is mandatory for a Magistrate to record the plea of guilty as nearly as possible in the words used by the petitioner-accused… Violation of such mandatory requirement renders the conviction as ‘illegal’,” the high court stated in its order.
“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,” the Telangana High Court noted pointing to a procedural lapse.
While scrutinising the evidence presented in the chargesheet, the Court observed that apart from photographs of a parked vehicle, there was insufficient “incriminating material” to prove that the petitioner-accused was actually “driving” the vehicle on the wrong side of the road.
Story continues below this ad
The Court also found that the vehicle in question had a “valid and effective insurance” policy in force during the alleged period of the offence. Setting aside the trial court’s judgment and conviction, the high court acquitted the petitioner of both charges, and any fine amount paid is directed to be refunded.
