Judges must ensure that the accused receives sufficient legal advice before pleading guilty: Madras High Court

Judge Anand Venkatesh issued a decision after finding that the men pleaded guilty before the first-instance court without knowing the consequences. The court, therefore, observed that the Magistrate must provide sufficient legal advice to the accused before pleading guilty and it is not necessary for the Magistrate to take immediate action after a guilty plea, especially when the punishment imposed was quite serious.

“In the considered view of this Court, it is not necessary for the learned Magistrate to take immediate action in respect of the accused persons pleading guilty before this Court. A learned magistrate must check that defendants understand the consequences and have sufficient legal advice before they plead guilty. If the sentence imposed is quite serious, magistrates will usually take no action against defendants who plead guilty and will give them the opportunity to contest the case. The law on this issue is too well regulated.” the court noted.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Sathish and Anand, who were facing trial for offenses under Art. 51, art. 52(i), 58, 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. The men challenged the court’s order. Magistrate Karur refused to allow their case to be challenged after pleading guilty.

The petitioners informed the court that after receiving the summons, they appeared before the Magistrate on March 20, 2023 and pleaded guilty. Based on this admission, the Judge remanded the case for final resolution. Meanwhile, the petitioners realized their mistake and filed an application expressing their intention to challenge the case on its merits. This petition, however, was rejected by the Judge of the Court, who then remanded the case for final judgment.

The court observed that when the Magistrate was asked to prepare a report, he did not find anything as to whether the intake of alcohol by the petitioners was voluntary or not. The court observed that the Magistrate merely found that the petitioner had pleaded guilty on the first day of hearing and thereafter, since he failed to appear when the case was posted for sentencing, an NBW was issued against them.

Noting that the petitioners wanted to challenge the merits of the case after seeking legal advice, the court considered that they should be given a level playing field and therefore granted their application. The court therefore directed appropriate action to the Court Judge and ordered the Judge to complete the proceedings within 3 months.

The Applicant’s Representative: Mr. R.Karunanidhi

The defendant’s attorney: Mr. B.Thanga Aravindh Government Spokesman (Legal Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 467

Case Title: Sathish and Another v. Food Safety Officer

Case No.: Crl.OP(MD)No.10665 of 2023