Back
1964 Supreme(MP) 151
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. R. Sharma and S. P. Bhargava, JJ.
STATE OF M.P. - Appellant
Versus
MUSTAQ HUSSAIN AZAD - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 410 Of 1964
Decided On : 12/12/1964
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C, 1898 - Ss. 243, 255 (2) & 412 - plea of guilty facts alleged by prosecution not amounting to offence - accused cannot be convicted - admitted facts not constituting the offence - an appeal is not bared.
When the facts alleged by the prosecution do not amount to an offence, the plea of guilty cannot stand in the way of the accused being acquitted. In such a case, the bar under section 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an appeal will not apply. A mere admission of facts does not necessarily amount to an admission of the offence with which the accused is charged. If an accused pleads guilty under an erroneous view of the law, that would not stand in the way of his acquittal. AIR 1954 Mad. 1020, AIR 1919 Bom. 160, AIR 1954 Cal. 82 & AIR 1951 Pat. 405 relied on. [Para 7
(2) Public Security Act, 1959 (M.P.) - S. 19 (5) - person authorised to enter a place and having a right of entry - railing slogans in a meeting in the area and creating disturbance - this provision not contravened.
Section 19 (5) of the M.P. Public Security Act authorises the State Government to declare a place protected area with the object to prevent entry of unauthorised persons in such areas. Where the accused were employees of the concern and were authorised to enter the place, they cannot be convicted for the contravention of section 19 (5), even though they raised slogans in a meeting held there and created disturbance. [Para 8
(3) Public Security Act, 1959 (M.P.) - S. 20 - power of the State Government to regulate the entry of persons in protected areas - the power includes the power to impose restrictions being placed on persons authorised to enter - notification intra vires - accused authorised to enter the protected area - creating disturbance in a meeting held there - can be convicted of contravening section 20 (4).
Under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 20 of the Act the State Government issued a notification subjecting the employees of the protected areas to the restriction that they shall not hold meetings, demonstrations etc in such areas. The words 'regulate the entry of persons' also imply restrictions being placed upon persons who are allowed to enter into a protected area. The notification was, thus, intra vires of the power as laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) of the section 20 of the Act.
Where the accused who were employees of the protected area, admitted to have held demonstrations in a meeting in that area, they are guilty of the contravention of section 20 (4) and could be convicted. [Para 9
(4) Criminal P.C. 1898 - Ss. 423 & 428 - affidavits filed by the accused appellant challenging the plea of guilty made in the trial Court - allegations made against persons not party to the matter that they induced the accused to plead guilty - affidavits are not evidence - no reliance can be placed on them - appellate Court may take additional evidence.
In an appeal filed by the accused against their conviction on their plea of guilty, allegations were made in the memo against some persons that they induced them to plead guilty. The appellate Court relied on the affidavits.
Held: If the appellate Court thought that the allegations made by the appellants before it called for enquiry, the only course open to it was to record additional evidence under the provisions of section 428 of the Cr. P. C. The affidavits filed before it could not form the basis of any judicial finding. Before acting on such allegations it was the duty of the appellate Court to enquire into each of them, after giving notice to person affected thereby, and, to record evidence in the presence of both the parties. [Para 10
(5) Criminal P.C, 1898 - S. 562 (1-A) - applicability of - does not apply to offences under Acts other than the Penal Code.
Section 562 (1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to offences specified in that sub-section. It has no application to offences punishable under Acts other than the Penal Code, or to any offence under the Penal Code punishable with more than two years' imprisonment. [Para 10
(6) Criminal P.C., 1898 - S. 561-A - expunging of remarks - remarks not based on evidence made against persons not party to the matter - may be expunged - matters to be considered by Judges while making remarks.
Where the remarks against persons who are not parties to the matter are not based on legal evidence and betray want of judicial balance, such remarks should be expunged.
It is necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. AIR 1964 SC 703 relied on. [Para 11
( 1 ) IN Criminal Case No. 3063 of 1964 on the file of the Magistrate, First Class, durg, the three respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1964, along with the petitioner T. L. Shrinivasan in Criminal Revision No. 360 of 1964, were, on the basis of their own pleas of guilty convicted of offences under Sections 19 (5) and 20 (4) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959. Out of the convicted persons, the three respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1964 filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence, which was allowed by Shri O. R. Siddiqui. Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. The learned Judge, while allowing the appeal preferred by these persons, made certain observations in his judgment against certain officials of the Bhilai Steel Project, whose names had been mentioned in the affidavits filed before the learned Judge. These officers have filed petitions (Miscellaneous Criminal Cases nos. 250 to 256 of 1964) under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the remarks made by the appellate Court in paragraph 16 of its judgment be ordered to be expunged from the record. The petitioner T. L. Shrinivasan, who had not filed any appeal against the order of conviction and sentence, has come up in revision before this Court (Criminal Revision No. 360 of 1964 ). This judgment shall govern the disposal of all these cases.
( 2 ) WE shall take up first the appeal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the appellate Court in favour of Mustaq Azad, Chandra Mohan singh and Jagdish Kumar Gulati. All these persons as well as T. L. Shrinivasan, were admittedly working as Technical Assistants in the Bhilai Steel Project during the relevant period. It was alleged in the challan that on the morning of the 13th of April 1964, Coke Oven Battery No. 4 in the Bhilai Steel Project was to be inaugurated by Hon'ble Shri Subramaniam, Minister of Steel and Heavy engineering, Government of India. While, the function was being held in the Coke oven area, which is a protected area, the respondents, along with others, assembled there in order to make some representation to the Hon'ble Minister. The said accused persons staged a demonstration while speeches were being delivered by the Hon'ble Minister and the officials of the Bhilai Steel Project with a view to cause disturbance in the function.
( 3 ) ALL the four accused admitted their guilt, and stated that they had taken part in the collective demonstration made on that occasion. The learned Magistrate treated this statement as a plea of guilty, and convicted each of the accused on its basis under Sections 19 (5) and 20 (4) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act.
( 4 ) IN the appeal preferred by Mustaq Azad, Chandra Mohan Singh and Jagdish kumar Gulati, it was stated by them that they were forced by the officers named therein to admit before the Court the allegations made against them, that the ingredients of the offence were not properly explained to them by the trial Court, and that the admission of guilt was obtained from them by 'fraud, promise and inducement' proceeding from the authorities specified in the memorandum of appeal.
( 5 ) IT appears from paragraph 5 of the judgment of the appellate Court that the order of conviction was challenged before it on the grounds (1) that no case under sections 19 (5) and 20 (4) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act had been made out against the appellants, (2) that the admissions and pleas of guilty, on which the convictions were based, had been 'unfairly obtained' from them, and (3)that the particulars of the offences were not properly explained to them. The other two grounds, which were urged in support of the appeal before the lower Court, are no longer material, inasmuch as the judgment of the lower appellate Court is not based on them, nor were those grounds urged in the arguments before us.
( 6 ) THE learned appellate Judge observed in paragraph 7 of his judgment that the ap
