Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Sri S.M. Deka
Director
North Eastern Judicial Officers’
Training Institute (NEJOTI)
The Judgment in C.A. 231 and 383 of 1966 (Mad) was held
to be correct.
convicted all the fourteen under Section 121-A I.P.C. In the appeal
before the High Court amongst others the contention urged was that “a
plea of guilty offered after the accused has claimed to be tried is not
within the contemplation of the Code.” Referring to Section 271 of the
Code. 1898 (Now Section 228 of the Code) 1973. The High Court held
that when an accused in the course of the trial withdraws his claim to
be tried and pleads guilty the Court is entitled to record the plea and
either accept it or continue the trial.” Such a recording of a subsequent
plea of guilty and acting upon it has been held to be at the most a mere
irregularity curable under Section 537 of the Code 1898 equivalent to
Section 465 of the Code.
JUDICIAL OFFICERS
The relevant Sections like 231, 242 etc. of the Cr.P.C make it
imperative for the Court to record evidence for prosecution after the
stage of recording the plea is passed. The use of the word “shall” in all
those sections prima-facie shows that the Court is bound to follow the
mandate of these sections. The Code does not warrant the subsequent
admission of guilt . The accused in a sense is estopped to take a
different stand later on. Apart from law there may be other factors such
as hope of lenient view by the Court or an intention to short circuit the
long pendency of the case, which directly or indirectly tend to affect the
voluntariness or truth of the subsequent plea. Section 313 (I) (a) also
does not accommodate a subsequent plea of guilty. Of the cases
considered in Part-2 above, 1968 Cr.L.J. 416, 1964 (2) Cr.L.J 86, 1975
Cr.L.J. 113 and 1983 Cr.L.J NOC 68 (Mad) were considered.
been indicated that the overwhelming majority of the High Courts going
by the mandate of the provisions of the Code does not support
recording and acting upon a subsequent plea of guilty.
(14) “The swing of the pendulum has been away from technicality,
and a greater endeavour has been made to regard the
substance rather than the shadow and to administer
justice fairly and impartially as it should be administered;
fair to the accused, fair to the State and fair to the vast
majority of the people for whose protection penal laws are
made and administered.”(underlining supplied)
(82) “The scope of the decision in 28 Ind App 257 (PC) has become
so circumscribed that it is doubtful if it applied to the
generality of cases of omission and defects that come before
the courts, excepting where they bring about the result that
the trial was conducted in a manner different from that
prescribed by the Code. ”(underlining supplied)
(97) “Is the framing of a charge and the recording of the plea of
the accused merely a ritual or a fundamental provision of
the Code concerning procedure in a Criminal Trial ? I think
it is the latter. Are the express provisions of the Code as to
the manner in which a trial is to proceed to be ignored, or
considered as satisfied merely because the Court explained
to the accused as to what he was being tried for ? I
apprehend not. For to do so is to replace the provisions of
the Code by a procedure unwarranted by the statute
itself.”(underlining supplied).
14
CONCLUSION