Back
2023 Supreme(Ker) 102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
Suo Motu - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.RC No. 4 of 2020
Decided On : 15-02-2023
For the Petitioner: Suo Motu.
For the Respondents: Smt. Maya M.N., Public Prosecutor.
Point of Law : Sections 265A of Cr.P.C., which enables an accused to have plea bargaining.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 379, 468, 471 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 265A, 375 - Criminal Appeal - Punishment for theft - Forgery for purpose of cheating - No Appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty - Criminal Revision Case was initiated suo motu - Facts leading to initiation of revision case are had sent a letter petition to High Court alleging that he is being forced to stand trial a second time in a case in which he has already undergone sentence - 2nd respondent happened to admit guilt and therefore it cannot be said that it was a voluntary one. (Para 9)
Finding of the Court :
Therefore, it cannot be said that initiation of coercive steps might have compelled him to plead guilty to the charge - As regards observation that 2nd respondent had mental illness also, there is hardly any material, Court of view that finding 2nd respondent pleaded guilty involuntarily is wrong - There is nothing on record that there was any kind of compulsion by anyone for his pleading guilty - In his complaint before this Court, he took stand that he pleaded guilty knowing fully consequences - What went wrong was that against his expectation that he would be released on probation, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment - Said circumstances also show that 2nd respondent pleaded guilty voluntarily.
Result : Revision Case is disposed of.
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case was initiated suo motu. The facts leading to initiation of the revision case are the following :
Sri. M.K. Vinod, Kozhikode had sent a letter petition to the High Court alleging that he is being forced to stand trial a second time in a case in which he has already undergone sentence. He was the accused in CC No. 726/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kunnamangalam (Cr. No. 1175/2014 of Kunnamangalam Police Station). The offence charged was u/s d. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment by judgment dated 17.10.2017 of JFCM Court, Kunnamangalam in CC No. 726/2015. While he was undergoing the sentence, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court (Criminal Appeal No. 369/2017 of the I Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode). Later he decided not to proceed with the appeal and had undergone the whole sentence. Hence, he informed his lawyer of his decision not to prosecute the appeal. Accordingly, the lawyer informed the Court that the appeal was not pressed. He states that, thereafter, without considering his plea, the Sessions Court heard and disposed of the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. The matter was again remanded to the Magistrate Court, vide judgment dated 23.02.2019, to conduct the trial afresh. But, before the judgment in the appeal was pronounced, he had completed the sentence awarded by the Magistrate and was released on expiry of the sentence. The warrant of commitment shows that he was admitted to the jail on 21.10.2017 and released on 11.07.2018 on expiry of sentence. After the Sessions court remanded the case to the Magistrate Court, a warrant was issued against him by the Magistrate. According to him, he is now forced to stand trial once again in a case in which he has already completed the whole sentence passed against him.
2. Although notice was served on the 2nd respondent, he did not chose to appear before this Court.
3. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The 2nd respondent stood trial in C.C.No.726 of 2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam. The offence charged was punishable under Section 379, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The allegation was that the 2nd respondent along with another stole a motorcycle and after forging the registration number and other particulars used the same as genuine. When the charge was framed, the 2nd respondent denied it and claimed to be tried. But, on a later occasion, he submitted an application to allow him to plead guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate accepted that request. Again the charge was read over and explained. The 2nd respondent pleaded guilty and on accepting that plea, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the 2nd respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.
5. The 2nd respondent preferred an appeal under Section 375 of the Cr.P.C. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode allowed Crl.Appeal No.369 of 2017, and set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. The main reasons for setting aside the conviction are that the 2nd respondent had a plea of mental illness, and therefore he could not take a rational decision and that an accused could not be allowed to plead guilty to the charge if he earlier denied it.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the Appellate Court entered into the aforesaid findings without there having any materials, and therefore the said findings are incorrect. Except the contentions in the appeal memorandum, no materials whatsoever has been produced before the Magistrate or the Appellate Court to show that the 2nd respondent has any kind of mental illness. The learned Public Prosecutor further would submit that there is no bar in allowing an accused to plead guilty to the charge on a subsequent occasion if he f
