Criminal revision dismissed against First Appellate Court's order remanding case to trial court for improper procedure where accused shifted from pleading not guilty to pleading guilty on same day.
Petition dismissed; parties directed to appear before trial court on 15.05.2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 450/2016
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D. Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, PP Mr. Rameshwar Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Judgment / Order
12/04/2018
Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
Accused-petitioners have preferred this criminal revision petition against the order dated 21.03.2016 whereby learned First Appellate Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court while setting aside the judgment dated 18.05.2015.
On perusal of the judgment dated 18.05.2015 it appears that when the substance of accusation was read over to the accusedpetitioners for the offence under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC he
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-450/2016]
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, on the same day after recording the evidence of PW-1 Prem Bihari, an application was filed on behalf of the accused pleading guilty. Thereupon the prosecution evidence was closed and the judgment was passed convicting the accused for the offence aforesaid. He was granted benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act while directing to deposit the Rs.200/- as prosecution expenses under Section 5 of the said Act.
Learned First Appellate Court has observed that the procedure adopted by learned trial Court is improper and is not in accordance with provisions of law. In view of above observation the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by learned Lower Appellate Court suffers from infirmity as the accused-petitioners were convicted on the basis of the application moved by them pleading guilty for the offence levelled against them.
Per contra learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the accused-petitioners have taken two contrary stands on the same day; firstly, he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter an application was moved by them pleading guilty of the offences charged against them. His further contentions is that the matter has only been remanded by learned Lower Appellate Court.
Having gone through the rival contentions and taking note of the procedure adopted by learned trial Court, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order of the learned Lower Appellate Court. The accused-petitioners were not justified in taking two contrary stands. When they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial,
(3 of 3)
[CRLR-450/2016]
the trail ought to have been conducted and concluded by the trail Court. As per the provision of Section 254 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 252 or Section 253, he shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence. Thereafter, an order of acquittal or conviction may be passed by the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 255 Cr.P.C. No shortcut can be adopted by the trial Court to conclude the trial by obtaining the application from the accused pleading guilty. Any such application moved by the accused after having claimed trial cannot be construed as proper course of action. In such facts and circumstances, the observation made by learned Lower Appellate Court in its judgment dated 21.03.2016 appears to be justified.
In view of above, there is no substance in the revision petition and hence the same is dismissed.
Both the parties are directed to remain present before the trial Court on 15.05.2018. Record, if requisitioned, be sent back forthwith.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI),J
Arun/9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a trial court commits illegality by accepting a guilty plea application from the accused after they had already pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Whether the observation by the First Appellate Court regarding the improper procedure in the trial court warrants setting aside the conviction and remanding the matter.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Hasti Ram Son Of Prahlad By Caste - Meena
Smt. Kesar Devi Wife Of Prahlad
Prabhulal Son Of Sheo Narayan Meena
Kali Devi Wife Of Prabhu Lal Meena
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p
Deeepak Maheshwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
