Magistrate cannot record plea of guilt during the trial and cannot dispose the case [Read the Order]

Delhi High Court has held that Magistrate cannot convict a person by recording a plea of guilt during the trial if earlier he had not pleaded guilty on framing of charge.

A bench of Justice Gauba was dealing with a case where the accused had challenged his conviction in the midst of the trial on a purported plea of guilt and has passed the order in the case titled as GAURAV AGGARWAL vs STATE on 22.07.2019.

The petitioner herein was brought before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate to face trial as an accused on the basis of report (“charge sheet”) under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), presented on 03.07.2002, upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.560/2001 of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on allegations of his involvement in certain acts of commission and omission constituting offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Metropolitan Magistrate having taken cognizance and issued process, secured the presence of the petitioner and eventually put him on trial on the basis of notice under Section 251 of Cr. PC, issued and served on 12.09.2002. The proceedings in the criminal case (No.789/2002) came to an end on 21.08.2013 with the order recorded by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) holding the petitioner guilty and convicting him for offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC on the basis of “plea of guilt”, this being followed by award of punishment in the form of fine of Rs.500/- on each count, the default sentence being simple imprisonment for five days.

The petitioner challenged the legality, correctness and propriety of the aforesaid order dated 21.08.2013 in the court of sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by filing a petition (Criminal Revision No.24/2015). The Additional Sessions Judge, however, was not impressed. He concluded that there was no error committed by the trial court, the order passed leading to conviction and sentencing as above being reasoned and speaking, there being no grounds for any interference.

When the matter reached the High Court, it observed "The Code of Criminal Procedure lays down detailed provisions for holding trial of criminal cases of various classes and at different levels. The eighteenth chapter relates to trial before a court of Sessions. The nineteenth to twenty-first chapters relate to trials by the courts of Magistrate, the last pertaining to summary trials, the first of them governing the trial of warrant cases and the second the trial of summons cases. The trial procedure, whether for the court of Sessions or before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, runs more or less similar course, it always beginning with the formal exercise of bringing to the notice of the person accused the allegations which he is expected to meet".

High Court also observed "The fact, however, remains that if the accused pleads not guilty, or the plea of guilty is not acted upon to record conviction thereon, the court calling upon the prosecution to adduce its evidence in support of its case, the trial proceeds in the manner prescribed in law, it ordinarily culminating in a judgment setting out, inter alia, “the points for determination”, “the decision thereon” and the “reasons for the decision”, as indeed the final conclusions resulting in acquittal or conviction [see Sections 235, 248, 255 and 264 read with section 354 Cr.P.C.]. The prescribed criminal procedure does not conceive of the exercise of recording the plea of the accused (in answer to the charge or notice of accusation) being held more than once".

It also observed "There are other weighty reasons to take the view against recourse to plea of accused being revised and recorded again in the course of on-going trial. In the event of charge being altered, by addition or modification (in terms of Section 216 Cr.P.C.), the process continues (unless a case of prejudice is made out necessitating “new trial” or discontinuance), “after such alteration or addition”, the court proceeding further with the trial “as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge” [Section 216(3) Cr.P.C.]. Noticeably, Section 216 Cr.P.C., which is to be read with Section 217 Cr.P.C. (guiding as to how the court is expected to act after alteration or addition to the charge) does not provide for fresh plea of accused being recorded, the exception applicable only in the event of “new trial” being ordered- under Section 216 (4)".

High Court further observed "It bears repetition to say that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for recording the plea of the accused (in answer to the charge framed against, or notice of accusations put to, him) more than once. If the accused pleads not guilty (or if his plea of guilty is not acted upon) and the prosecution is called upon to furnish proof of guilt, the procedure prescribed for trial resulting eventually in judgment based on evidence is to follow".

Read the Order here:

Picture Source :