ORDER
K. Natarajan, J.
1. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had not been provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself and only on the plea of guilty he had been convicted. The fact that the revision petitioner/accused engaged an advocate and the plea of guilty had been filed through the advocate is not disputed. The learned counsel who appeared for the accused did not state before the trial Magistrate, he wanted to contest the case on the merits. On the other hand, he pleaded for a lenient sentence and the learned trial Judge imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 304-A, IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 279, IPC.
2. In the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, no contention has been raised that no opportunity had been given to the revision petitioner/accused to defend his case and the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned trial Magistrate is erroneous. On a consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and on a perusal of the records of the case, the learned appellate Judge, basing reliance on the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika reported in AIR 2000 SC 164 : 2000 Cri LJ 384 had confirmed the conviction and sentence. In the above case that which came up for consideration before the Supreme Court, conviction and sentence have been imposed on the accused confessing the guilt and the Supreme Court had observed (at page 388 of Cri LJ) :
…In such cases sentence commensurating with the crime committed by the Accused is required to be imposed. Mere ‘acceptance or admission of the guilt should not be ground for reduction of sentence. Nor can the accused bargain with the Court that as he is pleading guilty, sentence be reduced.
In the above circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel that as the revision petitioner had pleaded guilty the learned Magistrate ought to have imposed only a sentence of fine, does not stand to reason and is not acceptable. Having not raised any contention before the appellate Court that no opportunity had been given to the revision petitioner-accused to defend his case and also the fact that the plea of guilty had been filed by the revision petitioner accused through one advocate and the advocate pleading only for a lenient sentence, I am clearly satisfied the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that no opportunity had been given by the trial Magistrate to the revision petitioner to defend his case is very difficult to accept. In my opinion, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka will not really help him, as in that case no advocate appeared on behalf of the accused in the trial Court and it appears, the plea of guilty had been made by the accused himself.
3. In the above circumstances, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no opportunity for the petitioner/accused to defend himself. Hence, it is not a case deserving admission and the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, viz., Cri. M.P. No. 3259 of 2000 is also dismissed.