Judgment 1. The appellants herein have challenged the judgment and order of conviction rendered in Special Criminal Case No.83/2006 passed by Special Judge, (NDPS), Nagpur on 6th October, 2007. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. M. Daga for the appellants and perused the records. 3. The appellants claim remand on the foundation of following grounds.:- (a) In the present case charge was framed against appellants on 19/6/2007 and at that time they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (b) Thereafter some persons gave understanding to appellants that if they pleaded guilty to the offence, they would be let off with simple sentence. (c) In view that Court has acting upon plead guilty awarded full sentence, has opened their eyes, that they did not understand in reality what were the actual consequences of sentence which followed the conviction. (d) They would not have pleaded guilty had they understood that the consequences would be so severe. (e) They did not understand the implications of what they were doing, by pleading guilty. (f) The practice of plea bargaining was held to be unconstitutional and illegal way back in the year 1980. (g) The approach of trial Court accepting the guilt of appellants is illegal. 4. The appellants have relied upon the reported judgment in the case of Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh and others ..vs.. State of Gujarat and another (1980) 3 Supreme Court Cases 120, 5. Learned APP Mr. V. A. Thakre opposed the prayer for remand relying upon the reported judgment in case of Tyron Nazareth ..vs. State 1989 (1) Bom C. R. 293 6. On perusal of record, it is seen that:- (a) The charge is at exh. 90 framed on 6th October, 2007. (b) The accused pleaded not guilty. (c) It is seen that at exh. 86 is a letter sent by accused jointly through jail in which all the accused have pleaded guilty. (d) The accused have tendered one more application exh. 87 which shows that they have accepted guilt and prayed for delivering the judgment. (e) On the same day i.e. on 6/10/2007 two Advocates for the groups of different accused have withdrawn their power. 7. (d) The accused have tendered one more application exh. 87 which shows that they have accepted guilt and prayed for delivering the judgment. (e) On the same day i.e. on 6/10/2007 two Advocates for the groups of different accused have withdrawn their power. 7. The letter sent through Jail contains statement about appellants' grievance that they are languishing in jail which results in extreme sufference to the family members and pleaded guilty which can be translated as follows : “Sir, we have pleaded guilty of what we have been charged by the police. We humbly pray that considering our poverty and difficulties faced by us and the family responsibility, justice be given to us with compassion. We pray that the plead guilt done by us be accepted. The judgment which would be pronounced will be accepted by us”. 8. It is seen from the para 11 of the judgment that the learned Special Judge has informed the accused that if they insist on pleading guilty, they would suffer sentence according to law and even they would not be able to prefer appeal. 9. It appears that the accused/appellants have persisted on their stand and learned Special Judge proceeded to act upon and has pronounced impugned judgment, and has directed that the trial shall proceed as regards accused Nos. 5 & 6, who had continued to plead not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. The law on the point is clear. The care which should be taken before accepting the plea of guilt is no more in fluid state. 11. Ordinarily in serious offence, plead guilty is to be avoided and it is desirable to direct that the case should be tried. Even if plea guilt is recorded which would be done, by distinctly putting to the accused each fact alleged in charge, if proved, would constitute an offence. Yet even on observing these safeguards, the Court would not be relieved from its duty of being satisfied that the plead guilty was made by the accused upon fully understandingly the repercussions and with free will, and is genuine and not due to misunderstanding and it would be to have the accused being tried. It is also to be ensured that the accused are duly represented through Advocate. It is also to be ensured that the accused are duly represented through Advocate. The view expressed above is well supported by various judgments apart from one relied upon by the appellants and in particular following judgments:- 1. AIR (34) 1947 Bombay 345 Abdul Kader Allarakhia ..vs. Emperor 2. AIR 1966 SC 22 Mahant Kaushalyadas vs.. State of Madras. 3. 1973 Cr L J 358 S. Chinnaswamy vs.. The State 4. 1999 Cr L J 2857 Anand Vithoba Lohakare & ors ..vs.. State of Maharashtra. It would not be necessary to discuss each judgments quoted supra and including the judgments cited by the learned Advocate for the appellants, and one by the prosecution. 12. This Court has considered the language in which the appellants have pleaded guilty, has been recorded, and is accepted by the Court. 13. It is seen to be a case where plead guilty is not in the form of admission or confession of each fact and act which constitute ingredients of offence charged. 14. What the accused have admitted is the whole parcel of charge which police have made against them, which is always an admix of imputations of facts alleged and allegations of what it means in law. This type of plea of guilt is not an admission of facts simplicitor which in law constitute on offence/offences. 15. The accused are on the very face of it deprived of legal assistance as is obvious their Advocates have filed withdrawal pursis and plea of guilt which is of admix as indicated in foregoing para. 16. It is not seen that any specific facts were put to them and that those facts are admitted by them. 17. It is left to be guessed in what state of mind the accused may have filed application of pleaded guilty. The accused are actually suffering on their admission of guilt in law. 18. If the accused are tried and they are found guilty on trial, they would be liable for conviction and sentence, and in that event, they will be given justice according to law, however for which trial has to take place. Until this is done, grievance of the appellants that justice is not done to them is based on reality of the matter and is not a fictional grievance. 19. Until this is done, grievance of the appellants that justice is not done to them is based on reality of the matter and is not a fictional grievance. 19. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to urge that their 'pleaded guilty' is definitely not rendered as well not acted upon in accordance with law and they are entitled for fair trial on setting aside impugned conviction and sentence. 20. In the result, appeal is allowed, and judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the accused decided on 6th October, 2007 by Special Judge (NDPS), Nagpur, is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh trial according to law. R & P be returned forthwith.