Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2024 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 994 - HC - Indian LawsIssues Involved: 1. Challenge to the Order dated 27.05.2022 by the ASJ dismissing the revision petition. 2. Conviction and sentencing u/s 138 of the NI Act. 3. Alleged procedural irregularities u/s 251 and 252 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Plea of guilty and its implications. Summary: 1. Challenge to the Order dated 27.05.2022 by the ASJ dismissing the revision petition: The petitioner challenged the Order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the ASJ in Criminal Revision No.10/2022, which dismissed the revision petition against the MM's Order dated 14.12.2021. The revision petition was dismissed on the grounds that there was no objection from the accused regarding the recording of the plea of guilt and that the MM was competent to pass the order on the plea of guilt. 2. Conviction and sentencing u/s 138 of the NI Act: The petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act by the MM and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,25,000/-. The conviction was based on the dishonor of a cheque issued by the petitioner to discharge liability for goods purchased, which was returned due to "Funds Insufficient". 3. Alleged procedural irregularities u/s 251 and 252 of the Cr.P.C.: The petitioner contended that the MM erred in not following the procedure u/s 251 and 252 of the Cr.P.C., arguing that the notice was not explained in a manner he could understand, leading to a mistaken plea of guilt. However, the court found that the notice was clear and unambiguous, and the petitioner, represented by counsel, had pleaded guilty consciously. 4. Plea of guilty and its implications: The petitioner initially pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. The MM recorded the plea in the petitioner's words. The petitioner later claimed the plea was a mistake, but the court noted that the petitioner did not protest until the sentencing on 14.12.2021. The court referenced judgments emphasizing the necessity of recording the accused's exact words but found no merit in the petitioner's claim as the plea was clearly recorded. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent and surrender before the MM within a week. The deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be released to the respondent, adjusted towards the costs and fine imposed.
|