Judgment ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by State. ( 2 ) THE accused was tried for offences under section 7 (i), read with section 2 (ia) (a) punishable under section 16 (1), (a), (ii), section 7 (i), read with section 2 (ia) (m) punishable under section 16 (1), (a), (i) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act. . ( 3 ) IT is seen on perusal of Judgment that even before framing of charge on 28th May, 1993, the accused person - respondent has put in a Pursis (Exh. 32 ). ( 4 ) THE Trial Court delivered the Judgment on the same day. The Trial court has incorporated in Para 3 of its Judgment as follows :- "3. Accused No. 9 filed the pursis vide Exh. 32 and pleaded guilty and claimed to be lenient. " (quoted from Para 3 at page 69 of the paper - book ). ( 5 ) IT is in the circumstances, as emerged, trial Court delivered the Judgment convicting the accused under section 7 (i), read with section 2 (ia) (m) punishable under section 16 (l) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The sentence ordered is till rising of Court and a fine of Rs. 1500-00, with default sentence of simple Imprisonment for three months. ( 6 ) IT is this Judgment and Order of substantive sentence, which is till rising of Court, the subject-matter of challenge in this Appeal. ( 7 ) THE ground of challenge is that as per section 16 (1) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Court has been fastened with a duty to "impose" a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months, but which may extend to two years, and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 500-00. . . ". ( 8 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on reported judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Amar singh, 2005 AIR SCW 3983. The case at hand before the Supreme Court was where in the Revision before the High Court, the conviction was reduced to 21 days, and fine was enhanced from Rs. 4,000-00 to Rs. 10,000-00. Their Lordships of Supreme Court, accepting the submission of the appellant-State, observed as follows :-"4. of NCT of Delhi vs. Amar singh, 2005 AIR SCW 3983. The case at hand before the Supreme Court was where in the Revision before the High Court, the conviction was reduced to 21 days, and fine was enhanced from Rs. 4,000-00 to Rs. 10,000-00. Their Lordships of Supreme Court, accepting the submission of the appellant-State, observed as follows :-"4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submitted that under section 16 (1 A) of the Act minimum sentence of one year imprisonment has been prescribed and no discretion has been given to the Court to reduce the same. This being the position, the High Court has committed an error in reducing the imprisonment from less than the minimum period prescribed under the Statute. " (Quoted from Para 4 of the Judgment cited supra ). On the basis of this Judgment, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for allowing the appeal and sentencing the respondent-accused, according to law. ( 9 ) LEARNED Advocate for the respondent tried to demonstrate on facts that in the present case the accused has recorded his statement of pleading guilty, which has occurred in the sequence even before framing of charge, as follows :- (a) Well before the charge was framed by the Judge and it was put to the accused, to ascertain whether he pleads guilty, he had, in the haste, or being misguided, or otherwise, placed on record his statement of pleading guilty at Exh. 32. (b) The Trial Court has framed the charge later in time and called upon the accused to say on it, when again he did plead guilty and said statement has been recorded which is at Exh. 38. ( 10 ) WITH this background, it is seen that due to something, such as "plea bargain", the accused gave his consent statement which, in turn, has resulted in rendering the Judgment of conviction of lenience in substantive sentence and ordered only monetary penalty. ( 11 ) LEARNED Advocate for the Appellant advanced submissions based on aforesaid factual matrix as follows :- (a) The accused got misguided as to the track of movement of the case, and, therefore, well before he was called to say whether he pleads guilty, he has filed his written Pursis (Exh. 32), thereby pleading guilty. ( 11 ) LEARNED Advocate for the Appellant advanced submissions based on aforesaid factual matrix as follows :- (a) The accused got misguided as to the track of movement of the case, and, therefore, well before he was called to say whether he pleads guilty, he has filed his written Pursis (Exh. 32), thereby pleading guilty. (b) This seems to have happened because he was probably rendered the legal advice to the effect that if he pleads guilty, the Court would take a lenient view of the matter, and the trial need not go long. (c) It is in this background, the accused elected or preferred to be prepared to suffer minor sentence of monetary penalty than a longer trial and to keep speculating on the point of sentence. (d) This act of the accused was almost akin to plea bargaining which, on the facts of the case, cannot be demonstrated to have occurred. However, an inference of probability of occurrence of such thing can certainly be drawn, because there was no other circumstance which would have led the accused to place on record a suicidal guilty pleading, when the provisions of law had rendered an arithmetic equation of a minimum substantive sentence of imprisonment for three months. (e) Whenever the plead guilty is not in the proper form , the recording of Memorandum of Plead Guilty would not be considered legal and proper. In the present case, the plead guilty is not duly recorded firstly in Exh. 32 where the accused voluntarily stated so in the Pursis, and later Exh. 38, when the Court has recorded it. (f) Technical recording of plead guilty by the Court does not seem to be defective. However, the manner in which the accused got misguided and filed Pursis Exh. 32 when read together with Exh. 38 the Memorandum of Plead Guilty recorded by trial Court, it reveals that the accused had already made up his mind to plead guilty and crave for lenience. ( 12 ) TO support the submissions, learned Advocate for the Respondent, in reply, placed reliance on two reported Judgments of Supreme Court in cases, of, namely:- (a) Thippeswamy vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 747 , and (b) mahant Kaushalya Das vs. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 22 (V 53 C 6 ). ( 12 ) TO support the submissions, learned Advocate for the Respondent, in reply, placed reliance on two reported Judgments of Supreme Court in cases, of, namely:- (a) Thippeswamy vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 747 , and (b) mahant Kaushalya Das vs. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 22 (V 53 C 6 ). ( 13 ) FORMER amongst the two judgments, namely Thippeswamys case, supports the Appellants plea that a situation, such as plea bargain, prevents the accused from a fair trial, since his behaviour has got moulded in favour of pleading guilty. A conviction based on such plead guilty, when the defence of accused was, in the result, taken away, results in violation of fundamental right of life as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Second Judgment, namely Mahant Kaushalya Das, is on the point of manner in which plead guilty is to be recorded. The said Judgment cannot be said to apply de hors on the facts of the case, nevertheless guidance can be sought from this Judgment on the point, namely that recording of Memorandum of Plead Guilty implies a serious exercise of jurisdiction and any defect creeping in recording of Memorandum of Plea guilt would go to the root of the case, to the extent of vitiating the conviction and sentence. ( 14 ) IN the result, in the present case, if it can be considered that pleading guilty was not correctly done, the conviction would get vitiated. ( 15 ) IN view of the situation that on one hand the sentence cannot be less than the statutory mandate, and, on the other hand, it cannot be lost sight that the accused has been faced with the situation where he has demonstrated that he was not dealt in the case with a fair trial, as due to being misguided, he pleaded guilty in haste and on erroneous belief that lenience in the matter of sentence is permissible. ( 16 ) SUBMISSIONS of the respondent are most plausible and do convince the reason and shock the mind as to how an accused can fall prey to speculative representations on interpretation of law. It is well settled that "plea of Guilt" is never an admission of set facts constituting guilt of an offence, as the guilt or innocence in law are legal concepts and propositions. It is well settled that "plea of Guilt" is never an admission of set facts constituting guilt of an offence, as the guilt or innocence in law are legal concepts and propositions. The respondent, therefore, cannot be hit from the behind, i. e. , without a fair trial. ( 17 ) IN the result, only option available seems to be that the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside by allowing the appeal and the case be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh trial for hearing and disposal afresh as per law, by giving to the accused an opportunity to offer to be tried. The trial be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the Writ. Appeal allowed.