9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not expedient that court should convict him even upon plea of guilty – Therefore Trial Court adopted erroneous approach in accepting plea of guilt of petitioner –Since statement of petitioner was actuated by misconception, it ought not to be treated as plea of guilt – matter remanded back to trial court for afresh consideration of evidences on record – Decided in favour of Petitioner. - W. P (CRL) 508/2015 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2015 - Ashutosh Kumar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Vinod Pandey and Mr. V. Thomas, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Jamal Akhtar and Mr. Amrit Singh, Advs. for the State Mr. Satish Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER Ashutosh Kumar, J. 1. Mrs.Govindraj Amutha questions the validity and tenability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 27.9.2014 passed by the learned ASJ/Special Judge, NDPS, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in S.C No.4/3/13 whereby she has been convicted under Sections 22/23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, fine of ₹ 1 lakh and in default of payment of such fine, simple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drochloride, a narcotic drug. 7. A complaint, therefore, was lodged against the petitioner. She was put on trial. Charges were framed on 29.4.2013 under Sections 8/22/23/28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 8. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The charge and the claim of the petitioner to be tried are being reproduced hereunder:- CHARGE I, S.C. Rajan, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi do hereby charge you Govind Raj Amutha w/o Sh.Kosi Mani, r/o 1/2, Paugai, Darasukam, Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu, as under: That on 01.02.2013, you were intercepted at IGI Airport while you were going to Malaysia by flight no.MH 0191 and you were found in possession of 9.720 kg.ketamine from your baggage. You also entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Abrahim for possessing, export of the recovered substance in contravention of the provisions of NDPS Act and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 8/22/23/28 29 of NDPS Act within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the above said charge. (S.C. Rajan) ASJ/Spl. Judge (NDPS) Dwarka/New Delhi 29.4.2013 The charge has been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as sentenced to a period of 15 months which he had already undergone. 14. From the Trial Court judgment it appears that after the examination of PW.6 on 19.9.2014, the petitioner had filed an application pleading her guilt. Since the petitioner could understand and comprehend Tamil language only, one Tamil knowing Court employee was called and with his help, the petitioner was made to understand the consequences of her pleading guilty in the case. The learned Trial Court has recorded that the legal aid counsel also tried to make the petitioner understand the consequences of her pleading guilty but the petitioner insisted for the same. 15. The statement of the petitioner was thereafter recorded by the learned Trial Court which is as hereunder:- Statement of accused Govindaraj Amutha w/o Sh.Kosimani D/o Govindraj r/o Padugai Darasukam Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu. Without Oath I am the accused in the present case filed by Customs against me. On 01.02.2013 I was apprehended by the customs authorities when I was going to Malaysia from IGI Airport New Delhi from Flight No.MH 0191. During examination of my bag 9.720 kgs ketamine was recovered and since then I am languishing in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial Court records the claim of the accused to be tried, the same ought not to have been lightly reviewed on an application by an accused, out of desperation and wrong conception that lesser sentence would be awarded in case the accused pleaded guilty. A joint reading of Sections 229 and 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure further makes it clear that if an accused claims to be tried and pleads not guilty, date would be fixed by the Trial Court for examination of witnesses. 20. In the case in hand the Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the petitioner was a daily wage coolie with two sons to fend for. Admittedly, the petitioner was not well versed either in Hindi or English, the language used in the Court. Till the time when the application pleading guilty by the petitioner was filed, she was not afforded the benefit of interpretation of evidence in terms of Section 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. Under such eventuality it was highly improper for the Trial Court to have accepted the statement of the petitioner as her acceptance of the guilt. 22. In Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P, 1998 Crl.Law Journal 1267 (Allahabad), the Division Bench had the occasion to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new exactly what was necessarily implied by his plea of guilty, the case should be tried. In Mst. Shukia v. Emperor AIR 1992 All 266 it was held as follows: The Rule is that when an accused is on his trial on a capital charge, it is not expedient that the court should convict him even upon a plea of guilty entered before the trial court itself. As a matter of practice the court should in its discretion, put such a plea on one side and proceed to record and consider the evidence, in order to satisfy itself, not merely of the guilty of the accused, but of the precise nature of the offence committed and the appropriate punishment for the same. Similar view was taken by Calcutta High court as early as in the year 1885 in Netai Lusker v. Queen Empress ILR Cal 410 and by Bombay High court in Emperor v. Chinia Bhika Koli (1906) Cri LJ 337. 10. Almost all the High Courts of the country have taken the view that the court should not act upon the plea of guilty in serious offences but should proceed to take the evidence as if the plea had been one of not guilty and should decide the case upon the whole evidence including the accused plea. We do not consider it necessary to refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
