Daniyal Qureshi | Symbiosis Law School Pune | 15th April 2020
Sudhamol P.V. v. Mariamma Varghese and Ors
Facts
The appellant in the present case filed this appeal aggrieved by the conviction by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1882. The appellant submitted an application to lea bargain for the offences under the charge. The Learned Magistrate convinced that the plea was made voluntarily and with full knowledge of the consequences.
Issue
Whether the omission of the in camera examination of the accused under Section 256B violates the order of conviction on the grounds of plea bargain.
Judgement
The counsel for the appellant contends that the submission made before the Learned Magistrate by the appellant was not voluntary. That she had not signed the application for plea bargaining of her own accord and that due to the violation of procedure by omission of in camera proceedings under Section 256B and conviction on the grounds thereof is a violation of the criminal justice system and has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. The counsel also relied on the judgement of the apec court in Josheph v. State of Kerala[1] Court had observed that it may not be appropriate for the Trial Court to take recourse to plea bargaining process under Chapter XXIA of the Code in relation to the complaints for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
On the other hand the prosecution argued that there was nothing on record to show an reflect that the appellant had not signed the application for plea bargain and other papers voluntarily. The counsel contends that the appellant has failed to show that there was any violation of her consent therefore the present appeal be dismissed.
The High upon examination of the order made by the trial court reached the conclusion that without doubt the in camera examination of the present appellant had been omitted by the learned magistrate. The High Court held that the under Section 256B In camera examination of the accused or the applicant as the case may be is an indispensable part of procedure.
The High Court appreciated the observation in Joseph’s case cannot be held to be good under law in view of the observation made by the Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta[2] that it will be open to the Court to consider the provisions of plea bargaining to have speedy disposal of cases under Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, convicted of the accused was entered scrupulously without following procedure and cannot be held to be good in law.
Appeal allowed.
[1] 2017 KHC 920
[2] 2017 (5) KHC 177
Leave a Reply