9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the question whether he had committed the offences, is not seen entered. In JUPUDI ANAND GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [ 2017 (10) TMI 1654 - SUPREME COURT] , the decision in Mahant Kaushalya Das was followed and the conviction of the appellant, based on his alleged plea of guilty, which the trial court had failed to record, was set aside. The proposition laid down by the above decisions is that the plea of guilty should not only be recorded, but such recording should, to the extent possible, be in the words spoken by the accused. As far as the instant case is concerned, the petitioner having pleaded not guilty at the first instance, recording of the monosyllabic answer 'yes' in the questionnaire prepared at the stage of framing charge, cannot, under any circumstance, be termed as pleading of guilt by the petitioner, based on which the court could have convicted him. As such, the judgments convicting the petitioner are liable to be set aside. The criminal revision petitions are allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. Matters remitted to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi for retrial in ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed under Section 35 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of Public Meetings Act, 1961, despite the enactment having only three sections. Support for the argument is mustered by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Jupudi Anand Gupta v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2019) 14 SCC 723]. 4. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor highlighted the limited scope for interference with the judgments where the conviction is based on the admission of guilt by the accused. 5. On scrutiny of the diary extract and records received from the lower court, it is seen that the court charge in the cases was framed and read over to the accused on 09.03.2017. Thereafter, the accused were asked whether they had committed the offences and they answered in the negative. This plea of not guilty was recorded and the cases posted for prosecution evidence. After a few adjournments, the cases were taken up on 24.04.2018, on which day, the question whether the accused had committed the offences was repeated. This time the accused answered 'yes'. This answer was treated as pleading of guilt and the accused were convicted. Surprisingly, in the questionnaire containing the replies given by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'yes', in reply to a pointed question by the court, cannot, under any circumstance, be equated with, or accepted as, pleading of guilt by the accused. 8. Yet another mandatory requirement is of the Magistrate recording the plea of guilty, which is a matter of substance intended to aid the administration of justice. In Surath Chandra v. State (A.I.R. 1961 Gau 19), the High Court of Assam reminded the Magistrates that an order convicting an accused on his own admission is not a final order as it is open to revision and the superior Court should be satisfied that what the Magistrate thought to be the admission of an offence by the accused was really such an admission. No doubt, when the admission of the accused is not recorded, the superior Court is deprived of the opportunity of forming its own independent conclusion. This may often result in serious miscarriage of justice. 9. In the decision in Mahant Kaushalya Das v. State of Madras (AIR 1966 SC 22), the Apex Court, though in the context of Section 243 of the old Code (corresponding to Section 252 of the Code of 1973), held as under; 6. It cannot be disputed in the present case that there has been a violation by the Magistr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant, based on his alleged plea of guilty, which the trial court had failed to record, was set aside. The proposition laid down by the above decisions is that the plea of guilty should not only be recorded, but such recording should, to the extent possible, be in the words spoken by the accused. 11. The relevant provisions and the precedents discussed above mandate compliance of the following requirements before acting upon the pleading of guilt by an accused; (i) The Magistrate should frame the charge, specifying the offences alleged against the accused; (ii) The charge should be read over and explained to the accused; (iii) The accused should be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence/s with which he is charged; (iv) The accused should plead guilty after understanding the seriousness of the allegations and the implications of pleading guilty. The plea should be voluntary and expressed in clear and unambiguous terms. (v) The Magistrate should record the accused's plea of guilty in the words of the accused, to the extent possible. (vi) The Magistrate, after considering all relevant factors should exercise his discretion and decide whether to accept the plea of gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial after framing charge. If an accused is allowed to withdraw his claim to be tried and plead guilty, an earlier termination of the trial can be secured and wastage of the precious time of the court can be avoided. In my considered opinion, the dictum in Santhosh requires reconsideration in the light of the subsequent introduction of Chapter XXIA to the Code vide Act 2 of 2006, providing for plea bargaining before the court in which the offence is 'pending trial'. 13. As far as the instant case is concerned, the petitioner having pleaded not guilty at the first instance, recording of the monosyllabic answer 'yes' in the questionnaire prepared at the stage of framing charge, cannot, under any circumstance, be termed as pleading of guilt by the petitioner, based on which the court could have convicted him. As such, the judgments convicting the petitioner are liable to be set aside. In the result, the criminal revision petitions are allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. C.C. Nos. 2058 of 2014 and 2059 of 2014 are remitted to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi for retrial in accordance with law. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
