Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 644 (MP)

Mangaldeen v. State of M. P.

2007-06-26

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2007
ORDER 1. Since none appeared on behalf of petitioner, this revision is heard and decided after careful perusal of record with the assistance of learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 7.10.1999, passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in Criminal Appeal No.5 6/99, affirming the order dated 24.8.1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Laundi, in Criminal Case No. 398/ 99, convicting him under sections 419 and 420 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and three years on each count, respectively. 3. In brief, the prosecution story is that complainant Sushila wife of Lachiya lodged a report with the police that her husband and nephew were detained in jail in connection with some criminal case. Petitioner came to her house and personating himself to be a relation of "Sahab", fraudulently and dishonestly induced her to give Rs. 500/- for getting her husband released on bail. He assured that her husband had asked him to obtain money from her, as he himself was detained in jail with her husband. It is also said that the brother-in-law of complainant Sushila also informed her that petitioner had also obtained Rs. 2,000/- from him by fraudulently inducing him to deliver money on the pretext that he will get Lachiya released on bail, as he was related to "Sahab". On the basis of such report, police registered Crime No. 108/99 under sections 419 and 420 IPC. After investigation, police filed charge sheet before the Court of Magistrate. 4. Petitioner, on the date, when charge sheet was filed, i.e. on 17.8.1999, filed an application, while in judicial Custody, that he wanted to plead guilty. Case was posted for hearing on charge on 24.8.1999. Petitioner was produced from the judicial custody. After hearing the counsel on charges under sections 419 and 420, plea of petitioner was recorded. Petitioner admitted his guilt. Learned Magistrate by recording that accused admitted the guilt voluntarily, convicted him for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and three years on both counts. Learned Magistrate further ordered that the amount of money seized from him be returned to complainant and Mullu. 5. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, from jail, it was contended by him that he did not commit any offence. Learned Magistrate further ordered that the amount of money seized from him be returned to complainant and Mullu. 5. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, from jail, it was contended by him that he did not commit any offence. According to him, while he had gone to meet one Sahab Singh, he had asked him that he wanted Lachiya to be released on bail. Sahab Singh introduced him to the wife of Lachiya. He arranged for filing the bail application of Lachiya by introducing the complainant Sushila to an Advocate. Subsequently, when he came to enquire about the date of the bail application of Lachiya, Sushila and her brother-in-law falsely implicated him and lodged a false report. After arresting him, he was badly beaten by the police. He was got arrested at the instance of Magistrate, laundi. 6. Learned Sessions Judge finding that the admission of guilt by the petitioner before the Magistrate was voluntary, dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. 7. On perusal of record of the trial Court, it transpires that on 17.8.1999 the petitioner was produced before the Court of Magistrate at the time of filing of the charge sheet. Though in the cyclostyle order sheet of 17.8.1999 it is mentioned that accused was already on bail, but from the application filed by the petitioner on the same day, it is revealed that he was produced before the Court in custody from Sub Jaillaundi. This application was filed on 17.8.1999 wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner did not want to contest the case. Therefore, he voluntarily admitted the guilt. On 24.8.1999, learned Magistrate framed the charges & recorded the plea .of the petitioner wherein simply it was mentioned that ^^tqeZ Lohdkj gS eSaus Ny fd;k gSA** and signatures of the petitioner were obtained. 8. From perusal of orders passed by both the Courts below, it does not appear that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to think over the consequences, which he may face after pleading guilty. It is apparent that the petitioner was produced from the custody both the times, firstly when he filed application and secondly when the plea of guilt was recorded. It is apparent that the petitioner was produced from the custody both the times, firstly when he filed application and secondly when the plea of guilt was recorded. Though it is mentioned that the counsel representing him was heard, but it is significant to note that no ingredients of the offence and punishment, with which the petitioner was likely to be punished, were explained to him. 9. In order that a conviction may sustain on the plea of guilty it must appear that the accused admitted in his plea all the elements of the offence. The plea of guilty must be clear and unambiguous and must be recorded as nearly as possible in the exact words of accused. Merely by mentioning in the plea that ^^tqeZ Lohdkj gS eSaus Ny fd;k gSA** it cannot be inferred that the elements of the offence were explained to the petitioner and he had pleaded guilty after understanding the facts and consequences of it. 10. On due consideration of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that both the Courts below have committed serious error of law and procedure in convicting the petitioner on the basis of plea of guilty by him. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside. 11. The petitioner was convicted and sent to jail by the Magistrate on 24.8.1999, since then, there is nothing on record to indicate that he was released on bail. Present revision before the High Court was filed by the petitioner from Jail on 22nd November 1999. There was no order of suspension of sentence of petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had been released after serving out his whole sentence. 12. In view of the above circumstances, there would be no justification for remanding the case back for fresh trial. The criminal proceedings of the present case against the petitioner are, therefore, dropped. 13. Revision petition is disposed off accordingly.