IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 494 of 2009 ------------------------------ (C.C NOS. 2142, 2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2149 A ND 2069/2009 IN THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,-1, ERNAKULAM) PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- XAVIER @ SEBI, S/O.LAZAR, R/AT. SATHEESH'S VEETIL PANDARAVILA, ONAKOOR, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 494 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 20th day of July,2009 ORDER This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by an accused who was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each in nine cases by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code accepting his pleading of guilty. Petitioner was arrested and was in custody when he was got produced in C.C.2142, 2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2149 and 2069 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam. Petitioner did not engage a counsel. A counsel was appointed by the Court to defend him in all cases. After the appearance of the learned counsel, cases were adjourned to a day after two weeks. On that day when the accused was produced and the charge in the respective cases are read over he pleaded guilty. Accepting the pleading learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced him. There was no direction to undergo the sentence in all the cases concurrently. Hence the Crl.M.C.494/2009 2 total period of imprisonment would be 27 years.Petitioner did not file appeals and while undergoing sentence this petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The report called for from the learned Magistrate as well as the records of the respective cases were perused. 4. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that learned Magistrate should not have accepted the pleading guilty without getting himself satisfied that it was voluntarily and that too after realising the consequence. It is also submitted that when petitioner pleaded guilty in nine cases he was unaware that he will be sentenced in the nine cases separately and without making the petitioner aware that he is liable to be sentenced in nine cases separately, the pleading should not have been accepted. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find that this court has to exercise the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with the conviction and sentence in nine cases and that too in a single petition , when a statutory remedy of an appeal is available to the petitioner in all the cases. The fact that petitioner was convicted and sentenced in nine separate cases for identical offence or that an appeal was not filed within Crl.M.C.494/2009 3 time or that no concurrence sentence was awarded in the nine cases and as a result petitioner has to undergo a total imprisonment of 27 years are not a valid or sufficient ground to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court in this petition and and thereby allow the petitioner to circumvent the statutory procedure provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if there is a delay in filing the appeals, when petitioner is undergoing the sentence and appeal is filed from jail there is no reason for not condoning the delay and entertaining the appeals. In such circumstance, when the statutory remedy of appeal is available, it is not proper for this court to interfere with the conviction and sentence in nine cases and that too in one petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is entitled to file appeals challenging the conviction and sentence in each of the cases. With the liberty to challenge the conviction and sentence in each of the case by regular appeal, the petition is dismissed. For condoning the delay in filing the appeal, petitioner is entitled to seek exclusion of the period when the Crl.M.C was pending before this court. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006