Magistrate Must See If Accused Persons Have Sufficient Legal Advice Before They Plead Guilty: Madras HC
The Madras High Court has held that a Magistrate must see if the accused persons have sufficient legal advice before they plead guilty.
The Court set aside the order of the Magistrate which convicted the Petitioners accused under under Sections 51, 52(i), 58 and 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (the Act) after they pleaded guilty. The Madurai Bench stated that the Magistrate must see if the accused persons understand the consequence of their pleadings.
A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed, “In the considered view of this Court, it is not necessary for the learned Judicial Magistrate to straightaway act upon on the accused persons pleading guilty before the Court. The learned Magistrate must see if the accused persons understand the consequence and they have sufficient legal advice before they pleaded guilty. Where the punishment provided is a quite serious, normally the Magistrates will not act upon the accused persons pleading guilty and will afford an opportunity to contest the case. Law on this issue is too well settled.”
Advocate R. Karunanidhi appeared for the Petitioners, while Government Advocate B. Thanga Aravindh represented the Respondent.
The Petitioners faced proceedings under Sections 51, 52(i), 58, and 59(i) of the Act. Upon receipt of summons, the Petitioners appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and pleaded guilty. Based on their plea, the Magistrate treated the matter as ready for judgment.
Subsequently, the Petitioners moved an application seeking to withdraw their guilty plea, citing that they had not fully understood the consequences of their plea. The Magistrate rejected this application prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.
The High Court observed that the Petitioners had expressed their intention to contest the case and raised concerns about the voluntary nature of their guilty plea. The Court observed that “it is not necessary for the learned Judicial Magistrate to straightaway act upon on the accused persons pleading guilty before the Court.”
“The petitioners did not appear before the Court below and therefore Non Bailable Warrant has issued against the petitioners. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.11.2023, the petitioners appeared before the Court below and the NBW has also been recalled,” the Court noted.
The Bench observed, “Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioners on legal advice want to contest this case, the petitioners must be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In the result, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is hereby set aside…This Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above directions.”
Cause Title: Sathish & Anr. v. Food Safety Officer