Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2015 (8) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT - TMI - Validity/Tenability of conviction order – Plea of Guilt – Petitioner questions validity and tenability of judgment and order of conviction whereby she was convicted under Sections of NDPS Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment with fine – Trial Court accepted statement of petitioner as acceptance of guilt and held that no appeal could have been filed except for legality/severity of sentence – Held that:- Section 229 of CrCP provid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

improper for Trial Court to have accepted statement of petitioner as her acceptance of guilt – Rule is that when accused is on his trial on capital charge, it is not expedient that court should convict him even upon plea of guilty – Therefore Trial Court adopted erroneous approach in accepting plea of guilt of petitioner –Since statement of petitioner was actuated by misconception, it ought not to be treated as plea of guilt – matter remanded back to trial court for afresh consideration of evid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

014 passed by the learned ASJ/Special Judge, NDPS, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in S.C No.4/3/13 whereby she has been convicted under Sections 22/23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, fine of ₹ 1 lakh and in default of payment of such fine, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 22 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, fine of ₹ 1 lakh (in d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y in a way, convicted the appellant without application of mind or following the requirements of law for convicting a person in a sessions triable case. The further ground of challenge is that the petitioner was not afforded the facility of a translator even though she did not understand the language in which the evidence was recorded. 3. Since the Trial Court accepted the statement of the petitioner as an acceptance of guilt, no appeal could have been filed except for the legality/severity of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ggage of the petitioner was searched. A white crystal powder like substance weighing 4.915 kgs was found in the baggage of the petitioner. Two samples of 5 gram each were taken out from the said powder like substance and were marked subsequently. The petitioner was also in possession of mattresses in which also narcotic substance was found to be concealed. A total of 9.720 kgs of the narcotic substance was recovered. In her statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the petitioner disclos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

im of the petitioner to be tried are being reproduced hereunder:- CHARGE I, S.C. Rajan, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi do hereby charge you Govind Raj Amutha w/o Sh.Kosi Mani, r/o 1/2, Paugai, Darasukam, Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu, as under: That on 01.02.2013, you were intercepted at IGI Airport while you were going to Malaysia by flight no.MH 0191 and you were found in possession of 9.720 kg.ketamine from your baggage. You also entered into a criminal cons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ead not guilty and claim trial. (S.C. Rajan) ASJ/Spl.Judge (NDPS) Dwarka/New Delhi 29.4.2013 RO&AC G.AMUTHA 9. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 5.6.2013, 21.8.2013, 28.11.2013, 12.2.2014, 16.4.2014 and 14.8.2014 the counsel for the petitioner did not appear. As a result thereof some of the witnesses could not be cross examined. 10. On 25.4.2014, the petitioner expressed her inability to afford a counsel and a legal aid counsel was provided to her. The legal aid couns .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n of the petitioner is being reproduced below:- 1) That I, Govindraj Amutha, w/o Sh.Kosimani was arrested on February 1, 2013 by Custom officials at IGI Airport with 9.720 kgs. Ketamine. 2) That I am married with 2 children all boys. Being a mother I am worried about my children although they are major but since I came inside I have no idea of their whereabouts. Also children of their age are the most vulnerable targets of social evils. 3) That being a mother, my motherly instincts and separatin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

let go for the period she had already undergone in custody. Such misconception was further buttressed by the fact that in a similar case where an accused pleaded guilty of carrying a controlled substance namely Ephedrine Hydrochloride was sentenced to a period of 15 months which he had already undergone. 14. From the Trial Court judgment it appears that after the examination of PW.6 on 19.9.2014, the petitioner had filed an application pleading her guilt. Since the petitioner could understand an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of accused Govindaraj Amutha w/o Sh.Kosimani D/o Govindraj r/o Padugai Darasukam Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu. Without Oath I am the accused in the present case filed by Customs against me. On 01.02.2013 I was apprehended by the customs authorities when I was going to Malaysia from IGI Airport New Delhi from Flight No.MH 0191. During examination of my bag 9.720 kgs ketamine was recovered and since then I am languishing in jail and facing trial and my application in this respect filed by my Ld. Counsel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(NDPS) Dwarka/New Delhi 19.9.2014 16. Thereafter the Trial Court, accepting the plea of guilt of the petitioner namely her carrying 9.720 kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride, convicted her under Sections 22/23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced her to undergo RI for 10 years under both counts, fine of ₹ 1 lakh under each head with the default stipulation. 17. The Trial Court judgment evinces complete non application of mind after such a plea of guilt was made by the petiti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roceedings are conducted and is illiterate. It is precisely for this reason that the Courts in India do not accept such pleas of guilt and proceed to take evidence in such cases. This practice of not accepting plea of guilt in certain circumstances is highly preferable lest the evidence which may be taken in the case might disclose that no offence was committed by the accused. The Trial Court misdirected himself in acting upon the plea of guilt in a serious case of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be awarded in case the accused pleaded guilty. A joint reading of Sections 229 and 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure further makes it clear that if an accused claims to be tried and pleads not guilty, date would be fixed by the Trial Court for examination of witnesses. 20. In the case in hand the Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the petitioner was a daily wage coolie with two sons to fend for. Admittedly, the petitioner was not well versed either in Hindi or English, the language u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

spect. Paras 8, 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment is very instructive and are reproduced hereunder:- 8. There is another aspect of the matter which is also of considering importance. It has been settled by a catena of decisions not to act upon a plea of guilty in case of serious offences like murder. A layman accused when he pleads guilty is likely to be more concerned with the physical act and not advert to the various ingredients constituting the offence. Whether the acts constitute murder is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nly desirable but essential that the entire evidence be placed before the court. 9. The principle that in a serious case a finding of conviction should not be recorded on the plea of guilty, was stated a century ago by this court in Queen Empress v. Bhadu ILR(1896) All 120 in the following words: In this country it is dangerous to assume that a prisoner of this class understands what are the ingredients of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and what are the matters which mig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion or acquittal according to the reliability or unreliability of that evidence. Again in Dalli v. Emperor MANU/UP/0325/1922: AIR 1922 All 233(1) it was held as follows: In a case of murder it has long been the practice not to accept the plea of guilty. After all murder is a mixed question of fact and law and unless the court is perfectly satisfied that the accused knew exactly what was necessarily implied by his plea of guilty, the case should be tried. In Mst. Shukia v. Emperor AIR 1992 All 26 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent for the same. Similar view was taken by Calcutta High court as early as in the year 1885 in Netai Lusker v. Queen Empress ILR Cal 410 and by Bombay High court in Emperor v. Chinia Bhika Koli (1906) Cri LJ 337. 10. Almost all the High Courts of the country have taken the view that the court should not act upon the plea of guilty in serious offences but should proceed to take the evidence as if the plea had been one of not guilty and should decide the case upon the whole evidence including the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

guilty. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal,- (a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or (b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence. 24. Normally the plea of guilt would be regarded as a waiver of the right of appeal except as to the severity or the leg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version