Item Nos. 39 & 40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

CRIL.PETN. No. 27 of 2020

With

MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 12 of 2020

Shri A. Solomon, aged about 55 years, s/o (L) Athikho, a resident of Near

Baptist Church, Poumei Colony, Imphal.

….Petitioner

- Versus -

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

…Respondent

BEFORE

HON9BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR

01.02.2023

This criminal petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arises out of

the Order dated 28.04.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Imphal West, in Cril.(P) Case No. 80 of 2019. The said order reads as follows:

8The accused A. Solomon is with Counsel present.

CBI nor Spl. PP present due to Lockdown. The other accused persons are

already discharged.

Charge is framed against accused A. Solomon for offence u/s 420 IPC.

On explanation of the charge and enquiring, the accused A. Solomon

pleaded guilty as charged.

Hence accused A. Solomon is convicted of the offence u/s 420 IPC.

Fix 6/5/2020 for sentence hearing.9

By order dated 13.10.2020, this Court directed that the sentence

hearing should not be carried out pursuant to the impugned order. This interim

was continued thereafter from time to time and is operative as on date.

Heard Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel for the petitioner; and

Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG, appearing for the Central Bureau of

Investigation, the respondent.

LAIREN

MAYUM

INDRAJ

EET

SINGH

Digitally signed by

LAIRENMAYUM

INDRAJEET SINGH

Date: 2023.02.02

10:20:08 +05'30'

2

The impugned order dated 28.04.2020 reflects that the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, had already discharged the other accused

persons, leaving only the petitioner. This discharge was by way of the order

dated 15.04.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West,

in Cril. (P) Case No. 80 of 2019.

While so, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed Cril. Revision Case

No. 13 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West, aggrieved by

the aforestated discharge order dated 15.04.2020. This revision was partly

allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West, vide order dated

27.01.2023, whereby the order dated 15.04.2020 was modified to the extent of

upholding the charge under Section 420 IPC against Accused No. 1 and directing

fresh charges to be framed against Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3 for the offence under

Section 120B IPC and against Accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 471

IPC. Accused No.1 is none other than the present petitioner.

Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel, would contend that in the light of

the aforestated revision order, the Trial Court would have to undertake trial of

the accused for the named offences. He would point out that there was no

admission of the facts by the petitioner, whereby the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate could have recorded a plea of guilt and proceeded to the stage of

sentencing. He would place reliance on case law in support of his contention.

Perusal of the proceedings held on 28.04.2020 before the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, reflects that the charge under Section

420 IPC was recorded against the petitioner herein and the learned Chief Judicial

3

Magistrate, Imphal West, noted thereunder that the charge was read over and

explained to the accused and he was asked the following question:

8Q. Do you plead guilty of the charge or claim to be tried?9

The answer of the petitioner was recorded as under:

8Ans:- I plead guilty as charged.9

In the State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and

others [(1992) 3 SCC 701], the Supreme Court observed that a plea of guilt

tantamounts to an admission of all the facts constituting the offence and it is

therefore essential that, before accepting and acting on the plea, the Judge

must feel satisfied that the accused admits facts or ingredients constituting the

offence. It was further observed that