Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jupudi Anand Gupta vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 October, 2017
Bench: S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2149 OF 2009
JUPUDI ANAND GUPTA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
AND ORS.
O R D E R
1. The appellant was convicted by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangareddy under Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C.) for the offence punishable under Section 9(1) of the A.P. Gaming Act, since he was found conducing matka (a game) near Vysya Bank, Sastry Road, Sadasivpet. The conviction was recorded and matka chits and a sum of Rs. 130/- were recovered from him. The way the conviction was recorded and the way it had been treated by the Courts is the Signature Not Verified only point for consideration before us. Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2017.10.13 17:26:41 IST Reason: 2
2. The Principal Sessions Judge,Medak had set aside the sentence of imprisonment but upheld the conviction of the appellant and imposed a fine of Rs.300/-. The High Court rejected the revision against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak. Hence this appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as a result of the conviction, the appellant lost his job and therefore, the validity of the conviction is important. The only point urged before us is that the conviction was not recorded in accordance with law and, therefore, the judgment convicting him was in violation of Section 243 of the Cr.P.C. In his judgment the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangareddy, had merely stated as follows: 3
"....The contents of the charge sheet readover and explained to him in Telugu to what he pleaded guilt. I am satisfied that the plea of the accused is voluntary and I accepted the same..."
The learned Magistrate had not recorded the words used by the appellant.
5. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Mahant Kaushalya Das vs. State of Madras reported in (1966) 1 SCR 229, wherein this Court reproduced the observations of the learned Magistrate, which read as follows :
"......Accused produced, Pleads guilty. Found guilty......."
6. Viewing the above confession in the light of Section 243 of the Crl.P.C., this Court observed as follows :
"...It is manifest from the record that the admission of the appellant has not been recorded "as nearly as possible in the words used by him", as required by Section 243 of the Criminal 4 Procedure Code. It is true that in the judgment dated March 22, 1963 the Magistrate has said that the appellant "pleads guilty", but the record contains no indication whatsoever as to what exactly the appellant admitted before the Magistrate. In our opinion, the requirements of Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code are mandatory in character and a violation of these provisions vitiates the trial and renders the conviction legally invalid. The requirement of the section is not a mere empty formality but is a matter of substance intended to secure proper administration of justice. It is important that the terms of the section are strictly complied with because the right of appeal of the accused depends upon the circumstance whether he pleaded guilty or not and it is for this reason that the legislature required that the exact words used by the accused in his plea of guilty should, as nearly as possible, be recorded in his own language in order to prevent any mistake or misapprehension. It has been held by the Madras High Court in Queen-Empress v. Erugadu1 that the violation of the procedure in Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code was sufficiently serious to invalidate the conviction of the accused. The same view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Shallabala 1 . ILR 15 Mad 83 5 Dasee v. Emperor2 and by the Allahabad High Court in Mukandi Lal v. State3. In our opinion, these cases correctly lay down the law on the point."
7. It is clear that for the same reasons, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. We, accordingly, set aside the conviction of the appellant. Ordered accordingly.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
..................J. [ S.A. BOBDE ] ...................J. [ L. NAGESWARA RAO ] NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 12, 2017.
2 . ILR 62 Cal II 27
3 . AIR 1952 Allahabad 212
6
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.6 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2149/2009
JUPUDI ANAND GUPTA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Date : 12-10-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO For Appellant(s) Mr. Tadimalla Baskar Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Arun, AOR Mr. Sayooj Mohandas M. Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR (NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Indu Kumari Pokhriyal ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Branch Officer [ Signed order is placed on the file ]