Whether the court can convict accused based on his admission of guilt in his statement under S 313 of CRPC?

The question then is can a conviction be based on such an admission of guilt made in the written statement followed by the oral statement under section 313 of the Code?

51. That brings us to the question whether such a statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code can constitute the sole basis for conviction. Since no oath is administered to the accused, the statements made by the accused will not be evidence Stricto sensu. That is why Sub-section (3) says that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he gives false answers. Then comes Sub-section (4) which reads:

(4). The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he had committed.

Thus the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under Section. 313 can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above sub-section. Therefore, though not strictly evidence, Sub-section (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial. See State of Maharashtra v. R.B. Chowdhari MANU/SC/0085/1967 : 1968CriLJ95 . This Court in the case of Hate Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat MANU/SC/0073/1951 : 1953 Cri. L.J. 1933 held that an answer given by an accused under Section 313 examination can be used for proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by a prosecution witness. In Narain Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0137/1962 : [1963]3SCR678 this Court held that if the accused confesses to the commission of the offence with which he is charged the Court may, relying upon that confession, proceed to convict him. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Death Reference Case No. 1 of 1989 and Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1990

Decided On: 15.07.1992

State of Maharashtra   Vs   Sukhdeo Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Ahmadi and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.

Citations: 1992 AIR 2100, 1992 SCR (3) 480,MANU/SC/0416/1992

Print Page

Bom HC: Magistrate can make order U/ S. 143-A of NI Act even when plea of not guilty recorded by Advocate and not by accused himself

 It is the case of the petitioner that, summons was issued to the accused returnable on 11.12.2018 The summons was served upon the accused on or about 01.11.2018 The petitioner, owing to unavailability of a confirmed travel ticket was unable to travel from Gurgaon to Mumbai and attend the Trial Court on 11.12.2018 but instructed an advocate to attend the proceedings and take appropriate steps in the interest of the petitioner. The advocate of the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on 11.12.2018 and presented an application for personal exemption of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate passed a conditional order thereby allowing the exemption application on a condition that the Advocate for the accused shall record plea on behalf of the accused and if the advocate is pleading not guilty then the accused shall secure his presence for bail and deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation within 60 days from the date of the order. It is further stated that, the impugned order dated 11.12.2018 is passed by the learned Magistrate in exercise of his powers under Section 143A of the said Act, inserted by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018. The section 143A of the said Act empowers the Magistrate to order the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation in a summons case when the accused pleads not guilty to the accusations made in the complaint. It is pertinent to note that the Section 143A of the said Act, does not contemplate recording plea of accused through his pleader. The provision of section 143A of the said Act, also does not allow the learned Magistrate to order deposit of interim compensation as a conditional order. More particularly, such order under Section 143A of the said Act, cannot be passed on an application preferred on behalf of the accused seeking exemption from personal appearance before the Court. Hence the present writ petition.

 Therefore, keeping in view the mandate of Section 143 of the said Act and also judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association(supra), the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was right in passing the impugned order. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In that view of the matter no case is made out to cause interference in the impugned order. Hence, petition stands rejected.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before S.S Shinde, J.)

Sidharth Chauhan  v.  Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund 

Criminal Writ Petition No. 762 of 2019

Decided on July 19, 2019, 

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1297,2020(1) MHLJ 277

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can convict accused on his admission of guilt without framing charge against him?

Section 238 Cr.P.C. obligates the Magistrate to satisfy himself
with regard to compliance of provisions of Section 207 i.e. supply to
the accused of the copy of the police report and other documents.
Thereafter, Section 239 Cr.P.C. requires the Magistrate to consider the
police report and documents sent thereunder and in case situation so
warrants discharge the accused if the Magistrate considers the charge
against the accused to be groundless. Under Section 240 Cr.P.C., if
upon consideration, examination and hearing the accused, the
Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed the offence, and he is competent to try the
same, he shall frame a charge in writing against the accused.
8. The charge is thereafter to be read and the explained to the
accused and he is to be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offences
charged or claims to be tried. If the accused pleads guilty, under
Section 241 Cr.P.C the Magistrate is to record the plea and in his
discretion convict him thereon.
9. Perusal of order dated 22.11.2017 shows that the accused was
produced from judicial custody and there was no counsel representing
the accused. Though the orders shows that the Magistrate warned the

accused of the consequences of his pleading guilty, the Magistrate did
not appoint an amicus to represent the accused. Legal counsel
apparently was not made available to the accused at the stage when he
pleaded guilty.
10. Perusal of order dated 22.11.2017 further shows that there was
no consideration by the magistrate, as is mandated under Section 239
and Section 240 Cr.P.C. Further, no charge was framed. As no charge
was framed there was no question of the Magistrate at that stage to
record the plea of guilt or otherwise of the accused, even if voluntarily
made.
11. Since the procedures prescribed by Sections 239 & 240 were
not followed the Magistrate could not have convicted the petitioner
under Section 241 on his plea of guilt.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 24.04.2019
CRL.REV.P. 415/2019 and Crl.M.A.7424/2019

SH. ADI MALIK  Vs STATE 

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Print Page

Whether a person can be denied public employment on account of conviction in minor offence?

In a growing democracy, where the systems are failing and the weak
and the downtrodden are hardly given the opportunity to sharpen their
intellect thereby diminishing the ability of their consciousness to act as a
mirror to their acts and actions, it is high time that the executive brings into
place a policy where summary/ordinary conviction should not be treated as a
conviction for entry or retention in government service.
33. Till then, it would be the duty of the Court to interpret the law by
harmonizing human sufferings and human wants, delinquencies and criminal
tendencies; conscious of the fact that passengers on Spaceship Earth are the
rich and the poor, the needy and the well-off, the hungry and the well-fed,
the educated and the uneducated. The need of the hour is to understand that
criminals are not born and are not irredeemable brutes. Crime may be a
disease but not the criminal, who are a kind of psychic patients and to
understand, that anti-social maladies are mostly the result of social
imbalances. It must be remembered that on the one hand, social stresses, for
various reasons, explosively mount in the real world’s hard environs and the
harsh remedy of heartless incarceration and ouster from society deepens the
criminality. The swing of the pendulum to the humanist side requires
respect for the worth of personhood and the right of every man and woman
in its residual human essence. 
34. We have discussed hereinabove the necessity to harmonize the
various social imbalances and in particular in favour of those who have been
denied the opportunity of developing their consciousness and thereby being
deprived of their conscious acting as a mirror to their acts. We have
highlighted as to how in various jurisdictions abroad the issue is dealt with.
We have discussed hereinabove the deliberations at the ‘All India Seminar
on Correctional Service’ where emphasis for re-habilitation of ex-convicts,
committing minor offences, by induction in public service was accorded
primacy in the deliberations.
A criminal record is a record of a person's criminal history, generally
used by potential employers to assess the candidate’s trustworthiness. The
information included in a criminal record varies between countries and even
between jurisdictions within a country. In most cases it lists all nonexpunged
criminal offenses and may also include traffic offenses such as
speeding and drunk-driving. In some countries the record is limited to actual
convictions (where the individual has pleaded guilty or been declared guilty
by a qualified court) while in others it also includes arrests, charges
dismissed, charges pending and even charges of which the individual has
been acquitted. The latter policy is often argued to be a human
rights violation since it works contrary to the presumption of innocence by

exposing people to discrimination on the basis of unproven allegations.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 Judgment Delivered on : July 15, 2016
W.P.(C) 11979/2015
MANOJ 

v
UOI & ORS

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

Print Page

Whether court should give credit to an accused for pleading guilty to charge?

We have carefully perused the entire material on record. It may be recalled that the appellant was given the maximum  sentence of 7 years in the previous case under Gold (Control) Act. The conviction thereunder was also based on the plea of guilty. The latter sentence under the Customs Act was also on the plea of guilty. Generally, it is both proper and customery for Courts to give credit to an accused for pleading guilty to the charge. But no credit need be given if the plea of guilty in the circumstance is inevitable or the accused has no alternative but to plead guilty. The accused being caught red handed is one such instance. The first case under the Gold (Control) Act against the appellant falls into the latter category. 7,000 tolas of Gold of foreign mark of the value of Rs. 1.4 crores were seized from the possession of appellant. The plea of guilty in that case was inevitable. The Court was, therefore, justified in awarding the maximum sentence. But the second case under the Customs Act was not of that type. Here the prosecution has to prove many things. There are 18 other accused facing the trial in the same case. The appellant, however, pleaded guilty perhaps on legal advise. He must have been told that some credit for such plea would be given by the court and if the credit is not given and the maximum sentence is awarded the appellant is surely entitled to complain for giving the maximum sentence.

Supreme Court of India

Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias ... vs Assistant Collector

 Of Customs ... on 31 August, 1988

Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 2143, 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 747

BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
OZA, G.L. (J

Print Page

Whether accused can plead guilty at any stage of proceeding?

The Supreme Court in the case 

State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh and another reported in (1992) 3 SCC 700

has held that on the accused pleading guilty, his conviction can be founded upon confession or admission of guilt made by the accused at any stage including the stage of making statement under Sec.313 and while acting upon the plea of guilt of the accused, court must approach with caution and circumspection to ensure that the plea is clear and unqualified and the admission of facts constitutes the offence, etc.

8. Both sides also point out that the Parliament had later amended the provisions of Cr.P.C. so as to incorporate provisions in Chapter 21 thereof, which provides for express provisions in the court for entertaining the plea bargaining and that this amendment made effective in the Code of Criminal Procedure with effect from 5.7.2006 would also clearly indicate the will of the Legislature that there is no embargo for entertaining such plea at any subsequent stage and that such plea could be entertained.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 2363 of 2015

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2015

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 AND 3

SHYNI MOOLAYIL AND ANR.

Vs

STATE OF KERALA 

Print Page

Whether putting of rubber Stamp of guilt of accused on charge sheet by Magistrate is objectionable?

A contention has also been raised in some of the petitions/
applications   that   the   trial   proceedings   are   not   proper   because   the
rubber stamp impression of the order that would ultimately be passed
in the proceedings had already been put on the charge­sheet.  Such a
question   has   been   specifically   raised   in   some   of   the   petitions/
applications  and it is  contended  that  this  shows  non­application  of
mind on the part of the Magistrate.    It is attempted to suggest that
putting   of   a   rubber   stamp   indicates   that   a  Magistrate   has  already
decided   to   hold   the   accused   guilty.     I   find   no   substance   in   this
contention.
It appears that in order to save time, such rubber stamps
were already put on the said 'charge­sheets', but from this it cannot be
suggested   that   the   Magistrate   thereby   committed   any   illegality.
Certainly,   if   an   accused   would   plead   not   guilty,   the   rubber­stamp
impression would have no meaning and would be cancelled by  the
Magistrate.  There is nothing illegal in the use of such rubber stamps,
provided such use in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal
Manual.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1849 OF 2010

Shri Sandeep Indravadan Sagar  V State of Maharashtra and others 

Print Page

Leading case law on plea bargaining

The status of accused, who pleads not guilty to the charge and claims to be tried is incomparable with the status of the accused, who pleads guilty and invokes remedy of plea-bargaining. In that sense, the two sets of accused cannot be equated or said to be similarly placed. Moreover, the provision, such as Section 265-E, providing for sentence is a concession offered to accused who voluntarily resorts to plea-bargaining, so as to avoid the uncertainty of the trial, the term of sentence, if found guilty and also the litigation costs and time. Until the introduction of Chapter XXI-A in the Code, the law of the land was to discourage plea bargaining, being against public policy. Thus, the argument of discrimination is unavailable to the accused, who, at his own volition, 38 210911

elects the remedy of plea-bargaining. As regards the effect of providing for fixed sentence period in cases of plea-bargaining, even though the principal substantive law does not provide for minimum sentence, we fail to understand as to how this argument can be taken forward by the accused electing remedy of plea bargaining at his own volition. Notably, the validity of Section 265-E is not put in issue in the present case. Neither the argument of discrimination, nor the effect of the provision resulting in imposing minimum sentence of one-fourth of the punishment provided or extendable can be taken forward by these petitioners.

33. Taking over all view of the matter, we have no hesitation in upholding the opinion of the trial Court that the Court has no discretion to award sentence other than one-fourth of the punishment provided for or extendable, as the case may be, for the offence in question in cases covered by clause (d) of Section 265-E of the Code. On this finding, the final order passed by the Magistrate of awarding sentence of 21 months to the petitioners is unassailable.

Bombay High Court

Guerrero Lugo Elvia Grissel vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 January, 2012

Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, Rajesh G. Ketkar

Print Page

Difference between plea bargaining, charge bargaining and sentence bargaining

A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.[1] A plea bargain allows both parties to avoid a lengthy criminal trial and may allow criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on a more serious charge. For example, a criminal defendant charged with a felony theft charge, the conviction of which would require imprisonment in state prison, may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a misdemeanor theft charge, which may not carry jail time. In cases such as an automobile collision when there is a potential for civil liability against the defendant, the defendant may agree to plead no contest or "guilty with a civil reservation", which essentially is a guilty plea without admitting civil liability. Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients.[2] In charge bargaining, defendants plead guilty to a less serious crime than the original charge. In count bargaining, they plead guilty to a subset of multiple original charges. In sentence bargaining, they plead guilty agreeing in advance what sentence will be given; however, this sentence can still be denied by the judge. In fact bargaining, defendants plead guilty but the prosecutor agrees to stipulate (ie, to affirm or concede) certain facts that will affect how the defendant is punished under the sentencing guidelines.

Print Page

Whether Accused can plead guilty at any stage of proceeding?

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh and Anr. (supra) it has been categorically held by the Apex Court that there is nothing in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure which prevents an accused from pleading guilty at any subsequent stage of the trial after framing of charge but the Court must act with caution and circumspection before accepting and acting on the plea of guilt and the plea must be clear, unambiguous and unqualified and the Court must be satisfied that the accused has Understood the nature of the allegations made against him and admits them.

Calcutta High Court

Smt. Snehalata Mondal vs State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 2008

Equivalent citations: (2008) 1 CALLT 297 HC

Author: A K Roy

Bench: A K Roy

JUDGMENT
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.
1. The petitioner in the instant criminal revisional application along with others has been facing her trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 4th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia of a charge under Section 14A of the Foreigners Act. During the course of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for pleading guilty. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application, hence this criminal revision.

Print Page