Delhi District Court
Ms. Paramjit Kaur vs The State (Nct Of Delhi ) on 25 March, 2011
Page No. 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. J. R. ARYAN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; NEW DELHI
Date of Institution : 06.01.2011
Date of judgment reserved on : 07.03.2011
Date of decision : 25.03.2011
Criminal Revision No. 03/2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
Ms. Paramjit Kaur
D/o Shri Puran Singh,
R/o Vill. & Post - Raunta,
Police station and Tehsil - Nihal Singh Wala,
Distt. Monga, Punjab
.... Revisionist / accused
Versus
The State (NCT of Delhi ) ..... Respondent
O R D E R : Ms. Paramjit Kaur convicted u/s. 420 R/W 511 , 471 and 120B IPC for which offences she was charge sheeted by police station Chanakya Puri in a case FIR 19/2008 and conviction was recorded by Ld. MM on 4.8.09 on a plea of guilt got recorded by petitioner herself on the charge has now come in revision for setting aside that conviction on a plea that conviction on her plea of guilt to the charge was an illegality where Ld. MM had failed to observe provisions of section 241 CrPC. Revision was filed on Page No. 2 06.01.2011. Separate interim application for condoning delay in filing of this revision is also filed. Notice of this revision as well delay condonation application was taken by Ld. Addl. PP and I then heard both sides wherein Ld. counsel Shri Mohit Mathur appeared for the revisionist and Ld. Addl. PP represented the State. It is pleaded and then argued by Ld. counsel Mr. Mathur that conviction in this case even it was based upon a plea of guilt given by the petitioner before Ld. Magistrate, it would have serious repercussions and consequences on the lift of the petitioner and those consequences and repercussions since had not been explained to the petitioner and consequently she made aware of such consequences , conviction on her plea of guilt was an illegality. Counsel submitted that section 241 CrPC provided that even where accused pleaded guilt the Ld. MM shall record that plea but discretion still was with the Ld. Magistrate to accept that plea or to proceed with recording of the evidence as the expression used u/s. 241 CrPC was "may". Even where a plea of guilt made by accused was recorded by the Magistrate he might in his discretion convict the accused thereupon and Ld. counsel emphasized that exercise of such discretion in convicting a person on his plea of guilt required a proper and well communication of the consequences to the accused before a conviction was recorded. Ld. counsel submitted that in the present case no such exercise was taken up by Ld. MM. Petitioner accused being unaware of the consequences of her plea of guilt entirely proceeded on a legal advice that with that criminal case ending she might take up her further projects of Page No. 3 life comfortably and petitioner was not aware that her conviction on her plea of guilt will disentitle her throughout her life to apply for passport or visa. It is pleaded in subpara K of para 3 of the revision petition that petitioner came to know impugned order prejudicial to her entire life and career when in February 2010 petitioner applied for visa to go abroad and visa was denied on the ground of her being a convicted person. Ld. counsel further argued that accused Paramjit Kaur ought o have be given an opportunity to defend the charge in the present case and since co accused Satish Kumar was still before the Ld. trial court in this very case, conviction ought to be set aside and petitioner could be granted an opportunity to prove her innocence which would be without prejudice to the cause of the prosecution. Ld. counsel argued that petitioner was well aware that if later on convicted on the basis of evidence brought by the prosecution in this case she could face a serious sentence other than the one which had been awarded to her on her conviction on the plea of guil. Ld. counsel submitted that for this very reason delay in filing revision deserved to be condoned so as to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly Ld. counsel submitted that revision deserved to be allowed and impugned conviction order dt. 4.8.2009 was liable to be set aside.
Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand strongly opposed these submissions and submitted that litigation taken up by the petitioner was nothing else but as thought convenient by her. There was no explanation providing a just and sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Plea of guilt to the charge was Page No. 4 made by petitioner accused with her application where she specifically pleaded in para no. 5 that applicant was moving that application without any pressure, coercion and she was well aware of the consequences of her plea. She was represented by her advocate Mr. V. K. Goel and she appeared before the court assisted by advocate. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that revision petition deserved to be dismissed as without merits and delay was also not liable to be condoned in the absence of any just and sufficient cause explained. I have considered these submissions and arguments.
Ld. counsel MM relied upon Kerala High Court judgment in a case Mohammed vs. State of Kerala 1982 CLJ 1120. Question for consideration in the present revision is whether conviction based upon a plea of guilt given by accused to the charge is an illegality. Merely that magistrate had discretion to accept that plea or to ask for prosecution evidence, whether conviction by accepting plea of guilt was illegality in the set of facts and circumstancess.
Facts in which the present prosecution came to be filed are : "A written complaint from embassy of USA dt. 17.1.08 addressed to police station Chankaya Puri was the basis of the case. According to this complaint petitioner accused Paramjit Kaur appeared in USA Embassy on 17.1.2008 for B1/B2 visa to visit United States. Purpose of the visa was to visit her sister and attend her sister's son marriage. Security official in US embassy found that documents concerning her portfolio were fraudulent. One such document " no objection certificate" from Guru Har Gonvind Page No. 5 Medical College was found to be a forgery . Petitioner Paramjit Kaur when confronted with those documents, she disclosed that it had been provided to her by Satish Kumar and had she succeeded in getting visa she was to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs to Satish Kumar and she disclosed mobile phone no. of Satish Kumar.
This petitioner accused Paramjit Kaur was arrested with the registration of the case with police station Chankaya Puri. Investigation revealed that no objection certificate dt. 11.1.08 from Guru Har Govind Medical College , Raipur, Ludhiana, Punjab purported to have been issued by CMO disclosing Paramjit Kaur was in service in that institution as a staff nurse getting a salary of Rs. 14,700/ and the certificate further certifying that institution had no objection to her visiting abroad was found to be a forged one. Other accused Satish Kumar was also arrested and presently he is being prosecuted before Ld. MM.
Impugned order dt. 4.8.09 shows that Ld. MM heard accused Paramjit Kaur present with her advocate Mr. V. K. Goel as well Ld.APP. defence counsel argued on the point of charge there was no material to connect accused Paramjit kaur with offence U/s. 468 IPC. This plea of Ld. defence counsel was accepted and accordingly charge for the offence of attempt to cheat, use of forged document knowing that it was a forged one and a charge of criminal conspiracy were made out. It is a matter of record that on that very day i.e. 4.8.2009 petitioner accused moved an application under her signature as well signature of her counsel Sh. V. K. Goel that she Page No. 6 wanted to plead guilt to the charge. Accordingly charge for the said offences was framed by Ld. MM and accused recorded her plea of guilt and stated further that she did not claim trial. Accordingly that plea of guilt was accepted with observation that it was made voluntarily and in the further attending circumstances that petitioner representing herself as a student and prayed for lenient view and thus that plea of guilt was acted upon and she was convicted for those offences. On the point of sentence she was awarded a substantive sentence of period already undergone for the offence u/s. 420/511 IPC besides a fine of Rs. 10000/. A further fine of Rs. 10000/ was awarded u/s. 471 IPC and fine of Rs. 5000/ was awarded u/s. 120B IPC. It is further a matter of record that petitioner when arrested in this case on 17.1.08 had come out on bail on 21.1.2008 and thus her judicial custody period was restricted to four days.
Whether there was a lack of proper communication to the petitioner accused before she recorded her plea of guilt to the charge in this case, it was none of the duty of the court to make a accused person aware that her / his conviction on such a plea of guilt may entail some disqualification or some adverse consequences. It was for petitioner to see herself as to what could be the consequences of conviction of her plea of guilt. It is a matter of record prima facie that no objection certificate presented by the accused petitioner with her visa application was a forged one. It is none of the plea in the present revision if document was not a forged one. Ld. Magistrate accepted the defence plea that a serious charge u/s. 468 IPC had not been Page No. 7 prima made out as during investigation specimen writing and signature of accused persons were taken and then got examined from FSL with the questioned documents. Accordingly every aspect of the case was examined and the present case could not be equated with the case of Mohammed v State of Kerala which has been relied upon by Ld. counsel where Magistrate was found to have proceeded with an undue haste in convicting accused on a plea of guilt when the accused in that case had been produced in custody and he did not have any advocate to assist or to advise him and he was produced with alleged offences u/s. 454/380/34 IPC. Accused pleaded guilt and he was sent for three year to Borstal home. It is only after one year that accused had been in Borstal home that brother of accused came to know whereabouts of accused and accordingly the proceedings were initiated. It came to be observed in the fact and circumstances of that case ;
"When an accused is brought from custody before a Magistrate, the Magistrate has a duty to inform the accused and to explain to him in his mother tongue the charge against him and alert him at the stage of Section 241 the consequences of his plea of guilty. In this case there was an undue haste. The petitioner's complaint is not wholly unfounded."
Further held " Stronger is the case before me. That was a summons case. Here, it is a warrant case. Here also, the petitioner did not have the assistance of a counsel or any other person to enlighten him. In fact, he was ignorant of what took place. He did not know that an appeal Page No. 8 would lie against the order sending him to Borstal School. It was after the expiry of one year when his brother came to know of his plight that an appeal was filed with a petition to condone delay.
I refer to these facts only to reassure myself and the haste with which the Court proceedings took place on 12.10.1978 ending with th plea of guilty was not in conformity with the provisions contained in Sections 238 to 241, CrPC I hold that this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 397 read with Section 401, CrPC"
Facts of the present case are entirely distinguishable. It may not be ruled out that the plea of guilt by the petitioner accused was recorded by her, may be on a understanding that substantive sentence was to be restricted to period she had remained in custody that supposition also could not be said to have vitiated the plea of guilt given by accused unless and until there was any further material justifying an inference that accused was either mislead or acted upon some improper communication which resulted in defeat of cause of justice. Ld. Addl. PP appears justified in his arguments that petitioner now as per convenience sought to get conviction set aside on a plea which was untenable and not supported by any material on the record . Merely that Magistrate was vested with a discretion to convict a person on his plea of guilt would not imply that Magistrate would not act upon that plea of guilt. There may be a situation before Magistrate that accused pleads guilty but then Magistrate might require proof of certain facts. In the present case prima facie a forged "no objection certificate" was Page No. 9 presented by the petitioner in support of her application and if Magistrate did not require any further proof for those facts, conviction cannot be said or described to be an illegality or even a miscarriage of justice for the reason that consequences and repercussions of such conviction had not been conveyed or elaborate to her by the court.
Delay condonation application also fails to plead any just and sufficient cause for its condonation. Just and sufficient cause implies a situation where petitioner was prevented from exercising a remedy beyond her control. No such ground or cause has been mentioned and pleaded in the delay condonation application. Delay condonation applicant is also liable to be rejected. Revision is without merits and is dismissed.
Copy of this order along with trial court record be sent to the Ld. trial court and revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open (J.R.ARYAN) court on 25/03/2011. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (01) NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.