9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SEEN 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. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA For the Petitioner Through: Mr.Peeyush Ranjan, Mr.Tushar Mudgil, Mr.Nikhil Kohli, Advs For the Respondents : Mr.Aman Usman, APP. Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, Ms.Bhavya Sethi, Mr.Shivain, Ms.Urvashi Sharma, Advs. for R-2. ORDER NAVIN CHAWLA , J. ( ORAL ) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Cr.P.C. ), challenging the Order dated 27.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order ) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, North, Rohini, Delhi (in short, ASJ ) in Criminal Revision No.10/2022, titled Balmeet Singh Kathuria v. State Ors., dismissing the said revision petition. 2. The above revision petition had been filed by the petitioner, challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came up before the learned MM on 12.10.2021, the learned MM framed Notice of the substance of acquisition on the petitioner, to which the petitioner pleaded guilty and stated that he does not wish to claim trial. The same is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition and is therefore reproduced herein below: [ NOTICE U/ 251 OF CRPC I, MAYANK GOEL, M.M. -03, NORTH ROHINI COURTS, DELHI, DO HEREBY GIVE NOTICE U/S 251 CRPC TO SH. BALMEET SINGH KATHURIA S/O SH. HARJINDER SINGH KATHURIA, R/O 16/14, EAST PATEL NAGAR DELHI, ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED NO.1, PRIME BIZWORLD PVT. LTD. AS UNDER: IT IS ALLEGED AGAINST YOU THAT YOU HAD ISSUED CHEQUE BEARING NO. 972193 DATED 30.08.2019 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,53,500 DRAWN ON SBI BANK, CHANDNI CHOWK, NEW DELHI IN FAVOUR OF COMPLAINANT IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE YOUR LIABILITY FOR THE GOODS PURCHASED. ON PRESENTATION THE SAID CHEQUE WAS DISHONOURED WITH REMARKS FUNDS INSUFFICIENT . YOU DID NOT PAY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT TO THE COMPLAINANT DESPITE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 18.10.2019 ISSUED TO YOU IN THIS REGARD. YOU FAILED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF THE SAID CHEQUE WITHIN IN STIPULATED TIME AND THEN THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED AGAINST YOU BY TH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thuria on the ground that they have no knowledge about the present case and they are sleeping partners in the accused no.1 company Same is not objected by accused Balmeet Singh Kathuria and by Ld. Counsel for complainant. Therefore, the proceedings of the present case is hereby dropped against accused Taranjeet Singh Kathuria and Smt. Harjeet Kathuria. Since the accused Balmeet Singh Kathuria has pleaded guilty in the present case, put up for orders on 08.11.2021. 7. The case was then listed on 08.11.2021 before the learned MM. On the said date, it is stated that, as the accused/petitioner was not present, the same was adjourned to 14.12.2021. 8. On 14.12.2021, the learned MM, based on the plea of guilt by the petitioner as recorded on 12.10.2021, convicted him for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and thereafter proceeded to sentence him with imprisonment and fine, as has been recorded hereinabove. In the order, it is also recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the petitioner has mistakenly pleaded guilty while Notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. was being framed on 12.10.2021. 9. Therefore, the first occasion when the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guage and in a manner which he could properly understand, because of which, by mistake the petitioner pleaded guilty to the notice. 13. He submits that, even otherwise, if the accused pleads guilty, it is the duty of the Court to also consider if the said plea was made unknowingly or due to a mistake. The conviction cannot result merely because the accused has pleaded guilty. In support of his plea, he has placed the judgments of Supreme Court in Shri Mahant Kaushalya Das v. State of Madras, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 3; Jupudi Anand Gupta v. State of Andhara Pradesh, (2019) 14 SCC 723; and Judgment of High Court of Madras in P.Saravanan v. State, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 17765; and Judgment of High Court of Karala in Raseen Babu K.M. v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2526. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the petitioner had fully understood the Notice that was put to him by the learned MM, before pleading guilty. He submits that the petitioner was also represented by a counsel and therefore, it cannot be accepted that the plea of guilty was wrongly recorded by the learned MM. He submits that the petitioner has intentionally not disclosed his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstance whether he pleaded guilty or not and it is for this reason that the legislature requires that the exact words used by the accused in his plea of guilty should, as nearly as possible, be recorded in his own language in order to prevent any mistake or misapprehension. It has been held by the Madras High Court in Queen-Empres v. Erugadu that the violation of the procedure in Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code was sufficiently serious to invalidate the conviction of the accused. The same view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Shailabala Dasee v. Emperor and by the Allahabad High Court in Mukandi Lal v. State. In our opinion, these cases correctly lay down the law on the point. 19. In Jupudi Anand Gupta (supra), 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. 20. In P.Saravanan (supra), the Court was confronted with the position where there was no record to show that the plea of guilt was put to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
