9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 994 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of cheque - insufficient funds - unambiguous notice - procedure under Sections 251 and 252 of the Cr. P.C. not followed - petitioner pleaded guilty and claimed no trial in the same - HELD THAT - In Shri Mahant Kaushalya Das 1965 (5) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court was confronted with the position where the admission of the accused therein had not been recorded by the Magistrate as nearly as possible in the words used by him as required by Section 243 of the Cr.P.C., 1898, which provision is pari materia to Section 252 of the Cr.P.C. In JUPUDI ANAND GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 2017 (10) TMI 1654 - SUPREME COURT , the Court was again confronted with the position where only the contents of the Charge-sheet had been read over to the accused and it was stated that he had pleaded guilty. It was on those facts that the Court held that the conviction of the accused only on the basis of him pleading guilty cannot be sustained - In RASEEN BABU K.M. VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA 2021 (6) TMI 1173 - KERALA HIGH COURT , the Kerala High Court held that the record of the plea of guilt should be recorded in words of the accused. In the present case, not only the Notice that was put to the petitioner was unambiguous, but also his plea was clearly recorded in the words of the petitioner himself. There are no merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the Order dated 27.05.2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petition. 2. Validity of conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Procedural compliance under Sections 251 and 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. Plea of guilty by the petitioner and its implications. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Order dated 27.05.2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petition: The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order dated 14.12.2021 by the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) convicting him under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dismissed this revision petition on 27.05.2022, leading to the current petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The ASJ observed that the petitioner, being educated and represented by counsel, did not raise any objections regarding his plea of guilt until after the sentencing order was passed. The ASJ upheld the MM's order, finding no illegality or irregularity. 2. Validity of conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The MM sentenced the petitioner to three months of simple imprisonment and directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/- to the complainant, with an additional one month of simple imprisonment in default of payment. The petitioner argued that he mistakenly pleaded guilty and that the notice was not properly explained to him. However, the court found that the petitioner understood the notice and pleaded guilty consciously, as evidenced by his representation by counsel and the clear language of the notice. 3. Procedural compliance under Sections 251 and 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The petitioner contended that the MM did not follow the correct procedure under Sections 251 and 252 of the Cr.P.C., which require the notice to be explained to the accused in a language they understand. The court examined the notice and found it to be clear and unambiguous. The petitioner's plea of guilty was recorded in his own words, satisfying the procedural requirements. The court referred to several judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasizing the importance of recording the exact words of the accused when they plead guilty. 4. Plea of guilty by the petitioner and its implications: The petitioner pleaded guilty when the notice was framed on 12.10.2021, stating that he did not wish to claim trial. This plea was recorded in clear terms, and the petitioner was represented by counsel who did not object. The court noted that the petitioner had pleaded not guilty in two other complaints listed on the same day, indicating that he understood the implications of his plea. The petitioner only protested against the plea of guilt after the conviction and sentencing order was passed on 14.12.2021, which the court viewed as an afterthought. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The court upheld the conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing that the plea of guilty was recorded properly and in compliance with procedural requirements. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent and surrender before the MM within one week. Additionally, the amount deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of the court was ordered to be released to the respondent, adjusted towards the costs and fine imposed.
|
