Delhi High Court
Lokesh @ Luvkush vs State on 21 November, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 1426/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 21st November, 2011
LOKESH @ LUVKUSH ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Sameer Chandra, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. A. 1426/2011
1 Notice issued.
2 Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State.
3 At joint request, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
4 The petitioner vide the said judgment has assailed the judgment
and order on pleading guilty dated 15.10.2011.
5 Mr. Sameer Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that vide application dated nil, moved from the Jail, it is
stated that the applicant has already undergone 03 years of
incarceration in the instant case. He was granted bail by the learned
trial court but due to non-arrangement of surety, same was never
utilised and he continued to remain in Jail. It is further stated that in the
application that because of the extreme poverty, though, the applicant
is innocent, owing to sheer compulsion, he pleaded guilty in the instant
case.
6 Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this
court towards another application moved by the appellant, wherein, it
is stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case, and if
necessary, an enquiry may be conducted. Neither the police conducted
the raid nor any article was got recovered from the house of the
appellant. However, he preferred not to contest this case due to poverty
and his family's responsibility consisting of two daughters, wife, one
younger brother and age old parents.
7 Accordingly, in this application, the appellant admitted his guilt.
8 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said two
applications were moved by the appellant for the plea bargaining,
however, he was not aware about the fact whether the plea bargaining
is applicable only for the offences wherein the maximum sentence is
07 years.
9 On the other hand learned APP for State submits that under
Section 265 A Cr.P.C., the plea bargain is not applicable, where such
offence effects the socio-economic condition of the country or has
been committed against women, or child below the age of 14years.
10 Therefore, the learned trial Judge has wrongly accepted the
application and delivered the judgment on admitting the guilt in the
instant case.
11 In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that
though a private counsel was engaged by the appellant to contest his
case, however, he was not available at the date of the impugned
judgment.
12 Time and again, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reminded that in
case a proper legal assistance is not advanced by any Advocate to a
accused person, then it is the duty of the concerned court to provide
him an advocate from legal aid for proper legal assistance to contest
his case.
13 I find, in the present case, situation is reverse, the appellant has
not been provided proper legal assistance who could narrate him the
consequences of pleading guilty.
14 Facts of the case are peculiar in nature. The instant case is fully
covered under Section 265 A Cr.P.C., as socio-economic condition of
the country is affected by the alleged recovery of fake currency notes
from the appellant.
15 The concerned trial court is directed to proceed with the matter
and appellant Lokesh @ Luvkush be tried along with other co-accused
persons from the stage of applicant being pleaded guilty as per
provisions laid down in Law.
16 I further made it clear that the application moved by the
appellant from Jail need not to be looked into at the time of passing of
final judgment.
17 As pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, he was
granted bail by trial court, but due to sheer poverty, he was unable to
furnish bail bonds. In the circumstances, I leave it to the trial court, if it
deems fit, it may reduce the bail amount/conditions.
18 Keeping the above discussion into view and, in the interest of
justice, I set aside the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2011.
19 Criminal Appeal 1426/2011 is disposed of on above conditions.
20 Dasti.
CRL. M.B. 2024/2011
The application is disposed of as infructuos.
SURESH KAIT, J
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
j
