Delhi District Court
Sombir vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 20 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS
JUDGE03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 46/12
SOMBIR
s/o Dharam Singh,
r/o village Bakhtawarpur,
Sisodiya Mohalla, Delhi ..................Revisionist
Versus
The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) ..................Respondent
ORDER
1. The revisionist has filed this criminal revision petition u/s 397 r/w 389 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 24072012 as well as impugned order dated 03092012 passed by Ld. MM/ Traffic/THC in traffic challan no. 902008 titled State Vs. Sombir u/s 185 and 146/196 of MV Act, 1988 whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ and to undergo five days SI u/s 185 MV Act, in default, SI for four days and Rs. 1,000/ u/s 146/196, in default, SI for two days. Vide STR no. 8037 dated 24072012, fine paid.
Crl. R. No. 46/12; Sombir Vs. State Page 1 of 5
2. TCR has already been summoned. I have heard Ld. counsel for the revisionist and the Ld. APP for the State and have perused the entire record.
3. The revisionist has taken the ground among others that the Ld. Trial Court has committed manifested error of law by convicting the revisionist on the alleged plea of guilt despite the fact that the revisionist induced to plead guilty on the promise of being let off with the sentence of fine only. It is settled rule of law that plead guilty has to be recorded in the very words of the accused as nearly as possible. The trial court failed to consider the fact that plea of guilt must be unqualified and the accused must admit each and every ingredient of the offence charged against him as well as the same should be reduced in writing in the words of the accused as far as possible. The impugned order was merely a stereotype proforma of pleading guilty and the Ld. MM did not put any specific question to the revisionist regarding the admission of guilt. Therefore, the conviction based on such plea of guilt is not proper and is liable to be set aside. The Ld. Trial Court had acted mechanically and it awarded such a harsh Crl. R. No. 46/12; Sombir Vs. State Page 2 of 5 punishment to the revisionist without considering the merits of the case. The revisionist was not involved in any accident and he could have been released upon a less severe punishment. The Ld. Trial court did not appreciate the basic requirement of statute in respect of plead guilty. The requirements of section 252 are mandatory in character and violation of these provisions vitiates the trial and renders the conviction legally invalid. The plea of guilt in a criminal trial is that the accused admits his guilt freely, voluntarily and with full knowledge of the consequences and meaning of his act, and with a clear understanding of the precise nature of the charges levied against him. The revisionist was not made to understand the consequences of his act as he was under
the impression that the Ld. MM would release him upon a lesser form of punishment rather than imprisonment.
4. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has relied upon the judgements reported as State of Gujarat Vs. Lakshman Mangaji Mena, 1998 CriL.J. 2161; B. Rajanna Vs. State of Karnataka, 1996 CriLJ 1820; Narata Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994 CriLJ 491, Crl Revision no. 107 to 113 of 1992 Crl. R. No. 46/12; Sombir Vs. State Page 3 of 5 decided on 27051993; Sashidhara Kurup Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, 1994 Cri.L.J. 375; State of Gujarat Vs. Dinesh Chandra Harjibhai Patel, 1994 CriLJ 1393.
5. Perusal of the order dated 24072012 of the Ld. MM/ Traffic reveals that from the contents of the challan, prima facie case was made out against the accused. All the accusations had been explained to the revisionist/ accused in vernacular. He voluntarily pleaded guilty. He had been told about the consequences of his pleading guilty. Accordingly, his plea was accepted as the same was without any force or coercion.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty to accusations before the Ld. Trial Court. The allegations in the challan are no doubt of serious nature. There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 24072012 and 03092012 passed by Ld. Trial Court. The aforesaid judgements relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, this revision is Crl. R. No. 46/12; Sombir Vs. State Page 4 of 5 not maintainable and the same is dismissed. The accused is taken into custody and sent to J/C to serve the sentence of five days SI u/s 185 of MV Act. Copy of this order be given to the accused/ revisionist free of cost. TCR along with copy of this order be sent back to Ld. Trial Court and thereafter revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ASJ/NW03/ROHINI/DELHI ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT on 20102012 Crl. R. No. 46/12; Sombir Vs. State Page 5 of 5