Karnataka High Court
Daniel Prakash vs State By Vyalikaval P S on 13 February, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
WP No. 16629 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION NO. 16629 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DANIEL PRAKASH
S/O DEVASAHAIYAM
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
PUDUKUDI VILLAGE
TIRUNELVELI
TAMILNADU-627 356.
2. SYED ALI
S/O SYED MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.86 SATTA PELLIYAR STREET
KALLADAI KURCHI
BEHIND CSI CHURCH
MELAPUDIKUDI
TIRUNELVELI
TAMILNADU-627 356.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
BHAVANI BAI G
Location: High AND:
Court of Karnataka
1. STATE BY VYALIKAVAL P S
REP BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TOSET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2021 PASSED BY
THE 49TH ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE,SPECIAL COURT
FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES CCH-50 AT BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-A
-2-
WP No. 16629 of 2022
AND APPRECIATE THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 229 OF CRPC
FIELD BY THE PETITIONERS AT ANEXRUE-F IN SC.NO.1347/2016
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
POLICE UNDER SECTION 307, 332, 435 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,
SECTIONS 3,4,5,6 OF INDIAN EXPLOSIVES SUBSTANCES ACT 1908,
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC
PROPERTY ACT 1984 BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF PARITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.21 and 23 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the 49th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases (CCH-50), Bengaluru on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 229 of Cr.P.C. for pleading guilty has been refused vide order dated 13.12.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 435 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Indian Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984.
-3-WP No. 16629 of 2022
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.
4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are the accused facing trial before the trial Court for the above said offences and during pendency of the trial, these petitioners- accused Nos.21 and 23 have moved an application for pleading guilty as per Section 229 of Cr.P.C., where the trial Court has rejected the recoding of plea vide order dated 13.12.2021, by dismissing the application as withdrawn which is under challenge.
5. Learned counsel submits that the co-accused No.22 has filed similar application where the same trial Court has accepted the pleading guilty, convicted and sentenced for seven years. Whereas, these petitioners are also already in custody for more than seven years and they too want to plead guilty. The charges also already been framed and also filed an application for pleading guilty and the trial Court refused to accept the plead guilty, therefore, they were forced to withdraw the application for pleading guilty and therefore, learned -4- WP No. 16629 of 2022 counsel submits the trial Court misunderstood the provisions of Section 229 of Cr.P.C., where the Court can accept the plead guilty, but convicted them is a discretionary, whereas, the trial Court refused to accept the plead guilty is not correct. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the same and however, he fairly admits that the trial Court cannot refuse to accept the plead guilty by the accused by filing application. However, the discretion given to the trial Court is only for convicting the accused.
7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, especially, the order passed by the trial Court reveals that accused No.22 has already moved an application for having pleaded guilty and he has been convicted and thereafter sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years vide order dated 04.10.2021. A set off has also been given under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. by considering the sentence already undergone during the trial. These petitioners are accused Nos.21 and 23 also moved a similar application for pleading guilty, where the trial Court refused to accept by relying upon the judgment of -5- WP No. 16629 of 2022 the Kerala High Court. On perusal of the order sheet, of course, it is an admitted fact that the plea has been already recorded by the trial Court, where the petitioners have already pleaded not guilty. Subsequent to the pleading guilty by the co-accused, these petitioner also want to plead guilty, hence, they moved an application under Section 229 of Cr.P.C. and requested to accept the guilty. But the trial Court refused to allow them to plead guilty and subsequently, an application came to be filed and based upon the same, the application of these petitioners came to be rejected. Even though, the trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdeo Singh @ Sukha and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 2100, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the accused can plead guilty at any subsequent stage of the trial and also held that even in the subsequent stage also the accused can plead guilty even though he has not pleaded guilty at the time of framing of charges. However, the trial Court extended the same relief to the co-accused No.22, accepted the plea and he has been convicted and given set off by releasing the accused. Whereas, the trial Court rejecting the plea of these petitioners-accused -6- WP No. 16629 of 2022 Nos.21 and 23 is not correct. Of course, the discretionary power given by the trial Judge under Section 229 of Cr.P.C. at the time of framing of charge, if the accused pleads guilty, the Court required to record the plea and thereafter, with the discretion to convict the accused or else, a Court may post the matter for trial. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court even though the accused pleaded not guilty and in subsequent stages, the accused can plead guilty and it can be convicted through the discretion. When the co- accused were extended the same relief, these petitioners are also entitled for the same relief. Such being the case, rejection of the application filed by the petitioners for pleading guilty is not correct, hence the same is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order of rejecting the application is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration and extend the same benefit on par with the accused No.22.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26