Justice Anand Venkatesh issued this order after finding that the men had admitted their guilt in the trial court without knowing the consequences. The court thus observed that the magistrate must ensure that the accused benefit from sufficient legal advice before pleading guilty and that it was not necessary for the magistrate to act immediately after pleading guilty, especially when the sentence imposed was very severe.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, it is not necessary for the learned Judicial Magistrate to take immediate action on the accused who plead guilty before the Court. The learned magistrate must see whether the accused understand the consequences and whether they have sufficient legal advice before pleading guilty. Where the sanction imposed is very serious, magistrates will normally not intervene when defendants plead guilty and will give them the opportunity to contest the case. The law on this question is too well regulated,” observed the court.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Sathish and Anand who were being tried for offenses under sections 51, 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 their guilt.

The petitioners informed the court that after receiving summons, they appeared before the magistrate on March 20, 2023 and pleaded guilty. Based on this confession, the magistrate submitted the case for final judgment. In the meantime, the petitioners realized their mistake and filed a motion expressing their intention to contest the case on the merits. This request was, however, rejected by the magistrate who then submitted the case for final judgment.

The court noted that when a report was requested from the magistrate, he did not indicate anything as to whether the applicants’ admission of guilt was voluntary or not. The court noted that the magistrate had simply stated that the applicants had admitted their guilt on the first day of interrogation and that subsequently, as they had failed to appear when the case was posted for sentencing of the judgment, an NBW had been issued against them.

Noting that the applicants wanted to challenge the merits after obtaining legal advice, the court held that they should be given equal opportunities and therefore granted their application. The court therefore ordered the magistrate to complete the proceedings within three months.

Petitioner’s advice: Mr. R. Karunanidhi

Defendant’s lawyer: MBThanga Aravindh, government lawyer (Crl. side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 467

Case Title: Sathish and Another vs. Food Safety Officer

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