Magistrates Must Ensure That Accused Get Sufficient Legal Advice Before Pleading Guilty: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently allowed two men to contest their case before the trial court even after making a submission admitting their guilt. Justice Anand Venkatesh made the order after noting that the men had admitted their guilt before the trial court without knowing the consequences. The court thus observed that the Magistrate must ensure that the accused persons have sufficient legal advice before pleading guilty and it was not necessary for the magistrate to immediately act upon the pleading of guilt especially when the punishment provided was quite serious. “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,” the court observed. The court was hearing a petition filed by Sathish and Anand who were facing trial for offences under Section 51, Section 52(i), 58, 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. The men had challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Karur refusing to allow them to contest their case after admitting guilt. The petitioners informed the court that upon receiving a summons, they had appeared before the Magistrate on March 20, 2023 and pleaded guilty. Based on this admission, the Magistrate posted the case for final judgment. Meanwhile, the petitioners realised that their mistake and filed a petition expressing their intention to contest the case on merits. This petition was however rejected by the Magistrate who then posted the case for final judgment. The court noted that when a report was sought from the Magistrate, the Magistrate did not state anything on whether the petitioners' admission of guit was voluntary or not. The court noted that the Magistrate had merely stated that the petitioner's had admitted guilt on the first day of questioning and thereafter since they failed to appear when the matter was posted for pronouncing judgment, an NBW was issued against them. Noting that the petitioners wanted to contest the case of merits after getting legal advice, the court opined that they must be given an equal opportunity and thus allowed their petition. The court thus directed the Magistrate accordingly and also directed the Magistrate to complete the proceedings within 3 months. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R.Karunanidhi Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 467 Case Title: Sathish and Another v Food Safety Officer Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10665 of 2023Click here to read/download the judgment

Magistrates Must Ensure That Accused Get Sufficient Legal Advice Before Pleading Guilty: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags