A. K. LAXMESHWAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 15-7-1989 passed in criminal Appeal No. 29/1984 passed by the sessions Judge, Hassan, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed on 8-11-1984 by the Prl" Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Arsikere in C. C. No. 710/1984. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as under: petitioners - accused were charged for the offence punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. When they were brought to the Court, they pleaded guilty. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act and sentenced each of them to undergo S,i. for one month and pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo s. I. for 15 days. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1984. The learned Sessions Judge, Hassan, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned magistrate. ( 3 ) MR. R. S. Chakrabhavi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the conviction is bad as the petitioners were not given sufficient opportunity, though the accusation was read over to them, before pleading guilty. When the accused were brought before the Court, the learned magistrate put the question to the accused as under: the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plea of the accused is not voluntary, as they were asked by the police to plead guilty and they would be let off only with fine. It is submitted that the accused were brought to the Court on this assurance. The learned Counsel relies upon a decision of this Court, rendered by a Division Bench in State of Karnataka v Malappa Siddalingappa - reported in 1980 (1) Karnataka Law journal -182. The learned Judges, observed as under:-"the accused has given the same answer to all the questions, namely, when translated into English, it means 'i admit the offence'. The way in which the accused has stated in his plea shows quite clearly that he has given his plea in a mechanical manner. The learned Judges, observed as under:-"the accused has given the same answer to all the questions, namely, when translated into English, it means 'i admit the offence'. The way in which the accused has stated in his plea shows quite clearly that he has given his plea in a mechanical manner. Before accepting the plea of guilty it is the bounden duty of the magistrates to satisfy themselves that the concerned accused has understood the charge or the substance of the accusation against him and the concerned accused has after understanding the same pleaded guilty and also after realising the consequences that follow. The aforementioned facts and circumstances leave much for speculation as to whether the accused had understood what the prosecution case was against him and pleaded as narrated above realising what would be the consequence of his plea. " ( 4 ) THEREFORE, the learned Counsel Mr. Chakrabhavi, submits that if the accused were knowing the consequence they would not have so easily pleaded guilty. I have to read this plea along with the action taken by the accused immediately on the next day to file the appeal. Therefore, 1 have no hesitation to think that the plea is not voluntary. I think there is some force in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel Mr. Chakrabhavi. Therefore, the order passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed. The orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside. Ends of justice require, accused should be given an opportunity to defend themselves against the accusation. Hence, I remand the case to the Trial Court for fresh disposal din accordance with law. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .