 Good evening friends. We have with us Justice Veeram Kumar as we all know that once he's here We will have a deeper insights in the perspectives of in the criminal law aspects today also we have an interesting topic with him and as we all know that his passion for taking the topic ahead is always different and And His sessions on the Live law as well as on beyond law CLC you can always watch that today's perspective is can be accused plead guilty after the commencement of trial And we are obliged as usual to Justice Veeram Kumar for accepting our invite and thank you, sir for accepting our invite Thank you, Mr. Vikas Good evening friends Now the question for consideration that the issue for concentration is In a case where the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of framed against him and the trial started when the in a in a warrant case accused Pleaded guilty period not guilty and the trial charge if it the charges framed against him He pleaded not guilty and the trial started At now the question is at the fag end of the trial whether the accused wants to plead guilty whether he can plead guilty the fag end of the trial having pleaded not guilty and having Permitted the court to start the trial and having called the court called upon the prosecution to Examine its witnesses etc. Now at the fag end of the trial the accused wants to plead guilty whether he can be Permitted to do so is our question Now when does the trial start? There are two types of cases Contemplated by the CRP that is summons trial summons cases and warrant cases Summons cases are those cases which are punishable with imprisonment for for up to two years Warrant cases are those cases which are punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years Now in warrant cases, there are three categories Two of them are tribal by a magistrate One type is warrant cases tribaled by a magistrate, but instituted on a police report The other categories warrant cases instituted on a complaint again tribal by a magistrate Third category of warrant cases is warrant cases tribaled by a court of session now As you all know in a summons case trial starts when not when they charge this way There's no framing of charge in a summons case in a summons case after the appearance of the accused when the But substance of the accusation Substance of the accusation is stated to the accused by the magistrate and He pleads either guilty or not guilty and if he pleads not guilty the trial starts Whereas in warrant cases whether tribal by a magistrate or tribal by a court of session There is a framing of charge When the accused appears the court will frame a charge the magistrate all these sessions judge will frame a charge against you And the charge will be read over and explained it to them in the language known to him And after understanding the charge if the accused voluntarily pleads guilty Voluntarily is very important. You should know the consequence of pleading guilty And then knowing the consequences if he pleads guilty then the trial starts. Oh, sorry If he pleads guilty he can be straight away convicted and then appropriates sentence can be imposed on you There's no trial, but if he pleads not guilty, he will say I don't know I do I have not committed these Open and reading non-guilty then only the court will call upon the prosecution to prove its case by Examining witnesses by producing documents in sit-law. So trial in a warrant case Starts when the accused pleads not guilty trial in a summons case also starts when the accused pleads not guilty But in a summons case what is read over to the accused is this substance of accusation There's no framing of charge whereas in a warrant case whether tribal by a magistrate or tribal by a court of session there's a framing of charge and The charge will be read over to the accused explained to him and if he voluntarily pleads Guilty he can be straight away convicted But if you pleads that if he says that I am not pleading guilty if he pleads not guilty Then the trial starts in a warrant key the difference is in a summons case There is no discharge because there is no charge Whereas in in a warrant trial. There is a discharge the before framing of charge the accused can plead for a discharge Is the now we come to the appropriate sections for pleading guilty for for trial and pleading guilty Summon case tribal by a magistrate under section 251 CRPC The substance of the accusation to be stated to him the magistrate will have to state the substance of accusation That is the particulars of the offense will have to be stated to the accused and if he pleads guilty Then there's no trial he can be straight away convicted But if he pleads not guilty he can the trial starts now section 252 is the promotion which enables the magistrate to Convict him on pleading guilty, but he pleads not guilty Then the court will call upon the prosecution to prove its case in the case of a warrant warrant case Tribal by a magistrate and instituted on a police report section 240 is the provision 240 CRPC is the provision enabling the magistrate to frame charge and on On pleading guilty he can be straightaway convicted under section 241, but he pleads not guilty then the trial starts Quarantine attitude otherwise and on a police report that is a complete case right complete They're also the set except for the fact that the second provision is different and the section 256 one Magistrate will frame charge and under section 256 three The accused can plead guilty and upon that he can if the magistrate is satisfied that he's plea of guilt is Voluntarily made he can be straightaway convicted, but if he pleads not guilty then the trial starts Then we come to the last category of warrant cases tribal by a court of session section 228 clause Subsection 1 clause B section 228 subsection 1 clause B of CRPC Enables the sessions judge to frame a charge against you upon appearance the court the court may frame a charge against you and if he pleads guilty There is a provision to 229 section 229 which enables the session judge to straightaway convict him but normally in sessions offenses being graver offenses which are punishable with extreme sentences Courts generally call upon the prosecution to abuse evidence. They don't act on the usual even though there's an enabling provision under section 229 CRPC Sessions judges normally do not straightaway convict him on On bleeding on his beating guilty. So when he pleads not guilty then the trial starts now the question which we have to consider is If the accused pleads guilty, there's no problem if he pleads not guilty then He has to the trial has to start start now the consequence of accused pleading guilty is that If he pleads guilty and the court is satisfied that he has voluntarily pleading knowing the only only realizing the consequences He has pleaded guilty then he cannot challenge the conviction Under section 375 an accused who has pleaded guilty and thereupon the court has convicted him He cannot challenge the condition no appeal is provided for challenging the commission. The the finding of guilt cannot be challenged Section 375 CRPC is the portion All that he can challenge before an appellate court is the the legality of this sentence The punishment alone he can challenge. He cannot say that the court was wrong in convicting me Court was wrong in finding me guilty. So that is Prevented by section 375 CRPC Now in a summons case tribal by a magistrate what the Supreme Court cautioned in in Mahat Kaushalya Das versus Tato Madras 1966 Supreme Court Double two here 1966 Supreme Court to corresponding to 1966 criminal law journal 1966 1966 criminal law journal page 66 three judges the author of the judgment is justice Ramasthami The this is the observation by the Supreme Court It is true that in the judgments dated March 22nd 1963 the magistrate has said that the appellate pleads guilty But the record contains no indication whatsoever as to what exactly the appellate admitted before the magistrate he accept the magistrate stating in the In the order or in the proceeding paper that he pleaded guilty. There was nothing discernible nothing There was no record produced to show that he had voluntarily pleaded guilty knowing fully the consequences of the plea Whether the the substance of accusation was explained to him read over and explain to him in the language known to him These are all the prerequisites for Substance for reading the substance of accusation Explained the particulars of it. There is nothing these records were missing Therefore the Supreme Court observed that the requirements of in our opinion the requirements of section 243 of Criminal procedure code that was a decision under the 1898 code corresponding section of the 1898 code in our opinion The requirements of section 243 CRP 1898. That is corresponding to 252 of the 73 code Are mandatory in character and Violation of these provisions Violation of those provisions the trial and renders the conviction legally invalid So even though there is no appeal provided against a conviction on pleading guilty if the conviction was without Satisfying the the prerequisites of pleading guilty then the issue at the even the conviction So the up the accused will be entitled to question the conviction even Wish it the conviction they wish it the trial renders the conviction Legally invalid the requirement of the section is not merely an empty formality But 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 on on the Circumstances whether he pleaded guilty or not And it is for this reason that the legislature required that 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 There is a similar verdict by the High Court of Kerala speaking through justice Subramanian puti in State versus Gopinath Pillai 1978 Kelti 779 that is a case where it was a session trial is a session trial and Accused at the session judge had recorded that the accused at pleading guilty But it was not discernible whether the charge the charge was the charge contained the ingredients of it So the learner judge held that Even if the accused pleads guilty if the charge does not contain the ingredients of the offence What he is doing? He is only admitting the fact He's only admitting the fact, but there is no offense the ingredients of the offense are missing in the charge Therefore just because he has pleaded guilty you can't convict him because there is no offense made out Therefore, he's he he is entitled to challenge his conviction also And section 375 CRPC is not a bar That is what the learner judge said it is precisely what the Supreme Court also observed that while Recording the plea of guilt and let the magistrate on the session code that has he satisfied about the safeguards given to the accused the the plea of guilt will not be Sustainable and it may wish a trial entitling the accused to challenge Even the conviction and the bar under section 375 may not apply The plea of guilt is tantamount to an admission of all the facts Constituting the offense it is therefore essential that before accepting and acting on the plea the judge must feel Satisfied that the accused has admitted all the facts and ingredients Constituting the offense the all the ingredients of the offense should be there in the substance of Accusation or in the charge the framed by the court the plea of the accused must therefore be clear Unambiguous and unqualified and the court must be satisfied that the accused has understood the nature of the allegation Made against him and has then admitted them the court must act with caution and circumspection Before accepting and acting on the plea of guilt once these requirements are satisfied The law permits the judge trying the case to record a conviction based on the plea of guilt if however The accused does not plead guilty or the learner judge does not act on his plea He must fix a date for the examination of the witnesses that is prosecuting evidence This is founded on the principle that he this is all a when accused Reading guilty and the court convicting him it's all founded on the principle that an admitted fact need not be proved you find the The code the principle Enshrined in section 58 of the evidence section 58 of the evidence act say if an admitted fact need not be proved because he's admitting acutely admitting that he did commit the offense maybe out of a brick of conscience or He wants to tell that truth before the court therefore he admits that I committed this offense So it is an admitted admission. So an admitted it is an admitted fact. It need not be proved Why should they precious time of the court means we Wasted in trying to prove an admitted fact he is admitting it therefore the court may not call upon the prosecution to prove the case Now even under section 58 of the evidence act there is a proviso which says that in a even Where the accused or whoever be there even in civil cases if a fact is admitted Not understanding that mission court is given the discretion to ignore the admission and call upon the opposite party to prove The fact the whole such admission So they're not returning that mission code can call upon the opposite party to prove the facts Which is the subject matter of admission likewise even in a case where they accuse pleading guilty thereby admits his offense Court can in a given case ignore the pleading guilty and call upon the prosecution to prove the case But why I we we selected this topic is there is a distressing note in an observation and in paragraph 52 of state of Maharashtra verses Sukhdev Singh a year 1992 Supreme Court 2100 a year 1992 Supreme Court 2100 To judges aim how many and K. Ramaswamy just is a memory of authoring the judgment This was the famous case arising from the assassination of general Vaidya as a retaliation to operation blue star carried out in the golden temple Amritsha thus the the According to me the objectionable observation in this judgment is There is nothing in this chapter in the chapter the chapter 18 Which prevents the accused from pleading guilty at any subsequent stage of the trial But before the trial judge accepts the and acts on the plea he must administer some caution For himself we have built may also be put forward by the accused in the statement recorder under section 313 CRT It is with regard to this statement in the judgment that I have some reservations because I Say matter of fact not to be turning the fact that a five and a six They were the persons who who subsequently pleaded guilty They had pleaded not guilty and the trial started It's at the fag end of the trial that they pleaded guilty not to be turning the fact pleading guilty in that case they Their conviction was actually endured and sentenced passed by the trial code on the basis of the evidence Adduced by the procedure not on the basis of their pleading guilty But this therefore this observation was on unnecessary and unwarranted The statement in the above verdict that there is nothing in chapter 18 CRPC Which prevents the accused from pleading guilty or at any subsequent stage of the trial is really contrary to the scheme under the CRPC as per the CRPC once trial has started Consequence of the accused pleading not guilty. There is no power in the court to retrace its steps backwards and go to the pre-charge the stage and Allow the accused to plead guilty. In fact, we have seen we have seen How Adalya Prasad versus Rupalal Jindal a year 2004 Supreme Court 4674 three judges overruled K. Matthew Which came went from Kerala The correspondence 2004 volume 7 SCC 338 three judges. This is Santoshakade, S.B. Sinha and A.K. Mathur Just followed by Subramaniam Sethuraman versus Tata Maharashtra a year 2004 Supreme Court 4711 corresponding to 2004 13 SCC 324 three judges again Santoshakade, S.B. Sinha and Tarun Chatharvi the author of both the judgment is Justice N. Santoshakade in both these cases the Supreme Court held that once in a criminal trial once the magistrate crosses a particular stage He there is no power of review For a criminal court. He cannot retrace his step backwards and come to a previous stage He's not permissible. That is how K. Matthew was overruled by the three judge bench Now the legal position in a warrant case Tribal by a magistrate under the corresponding section of 1898 was Specifically considered by an earlier three judge bench decision. In fact this Sukadev Singh was Did not notice an earlier three judge bench decision, which was binding on them. That is Radhilaal Banji Mitani versus Tata Maharashtra a year 1979 Supreme Court Page 94 a year 1979 Supreme Court 94 three judges R.S. Sarkarya the great judge R.S. Sarkarya O. Chinna Paradee and AP Sen R.S. Sarkarya being the author of the judgment His lordship. This is what the bench observed in paragraph 28 of Radhilaal Banji once a charge is framed The magistrate has no power under section 227 of the 1898 court corresponding to section 216 of the 1973 court or any other portion of the court to cancel the charge and Reverse the proceedings to the stage of section 253 that is 245 of the year 73 code and discharge the appeal So then once the charge is framed and the trial has started the magistrate has no power To retrace his step backwards to come to a pre-charges need. This is what the three judge bench observed in held in Way back in 1979 Now Sukdev Singh was this was binding on Sukdev Singh But unfortunately, they did not notice this and it was not brought to their motive. So this thing was in 1992 Whereas the other one the earlier three judge benches 1979 now After Sukdev Singh in fact before In Kerala in the High Court of Kerala Santos versus state of Kerala 2003 volume 1 KLT 795 Author of the judgment is justice and Christian lawyer. This just relying on Shyama Charan. In fact 19 a year 1934 Patna 3 3 0 Ram Kishun versus state of UP that is 1996 criminal law journal 440 alone relying on a Patna decision and an Alhava decision The learner judge held that The court can at any stage allow the accused to withdraw his earlier plea of not guilty and Permit him to plead guilty and that section 229 of the 1898 code corresponding to section 216 of the 1973 code need not need not be given a restricted meaning in fact this This learner judge did not notice Sukdev Singh But relying on a Patna decision and Alhava decision to sell that he can The court can permit the accused to withdraw his plea of not guilty and allow him to plead guilty at any stage of the deal This was this was again contrary to the three judge ruling in 1979 Supreme Court page 94 Sandals case was really a summary trial in which there was no question of any charge being amended Secondly, there are also the three judge-bent decision of Redilal Banji year 1979 Supreme Court 94 Which was not brought to the notice of the learner judge though it was binding on the learner judge Subsequently another judge subsequently in shiny mule shiny mule versus state of Kerala 2015 volume 3 KLT 263 The author of the judgment is Alexander Tomes justice Alexander Tomes relying on son the two Patna decision and Sukdev's that the Kerala Kerala code decision earlier decision by justice Christian Nair and So this thing also was relied on to hold that the if the guilt if the accused is Admitting the guilt at any stage of trial even after the coming trial He can be permitted to plead guilty and there is no bar in the CRPC to allow that plea At any state of the trial after the framing of charge here also the scheme under the CRPC has been overlooked Ignoring the binding verdict in Redilal Banji Mitani year 1979 Supreme Court 94 still later in paragraph 12 of Racine Babu versus state of Kerala 2021 volume 4 KLT 22 double 2 2021 volume 4 KLT double 2 justice VG Arun of the Kerala code has observed that the dictum laid down in Sandosh Requires reconsideration even though this verdict does not take note of Redilal Banji 1979 Supreme Court 94 and shine and shiny mule and also Sugdev Singh The principles have been very correctly stated by the runner judge justice VG Arun of the Kerala code something and really this job but unfortunately he could not overrule an earlier decision by another judge of the high court nor could he Descend descend to the to judge Banji of the Supreme Court in Sugdev Singh. That's a Supreme Court judge So my conclusion is that even Sugdev Singh Even in Sugdev Singh the to judge Banji of the Supreme Court failed to consider or which was binding or Redilal Banji was binding on the to judge Banji decision. The three judge Banji by the Supreme Court Redilal Banji way back in 1979 1979 Supreme Court page 94. It was not brought to the notice of the two judges and Sugdev Singh and lays down the Law incorrectly. I'm therefore the considered opinion that whether in a summon trial or in a warrant trial or in a session trial It is not open to the accused to plead guilty After the trial has started Consequent on his pleading not guilty the magistrate or the judge as the case may be He's also not entitled to Retreat his steps backwards to the pre-charges stage So as to allow the accused to withdraw his earlier plea of not guilty and to plead guilty So this is an aspect which had which I had noted during my Lectures and during my Study lectures in the judicial academy. So there's a every possibility of judges and advocates coming Committing mistakes. So it is not as if after the commencement of trial. He can plead guilty He can retreat. He can withdraw his Earlier claim of not guilty and plead guilty. No, he cannot 79 supreme the scheme of CRPC coupled with 1979 Supreme Court page 94 prohibits any judge or any lawyer from arguing that the accused can plead guilty After the commencement of trial after the commencement of trial the case had to end in a conviction or acquittal as the case may be There cannot be any other via media. This is what Adalatrasad also said. This is what what? Subramaniam Chandrasee also said therefore Subramaniam Sethuraman also said therefore on this exact point Redhiraal Banji Mitani is on the point So long as that three judge ruling that is also rendered under Under the 1973 court present court therefore that decision is binding on all court in India Unless and under it is over as long as the provisions in the CRPC remain the same It cannot be overruled also. They have very just his secretary has very Beautifully explained the position in Redhiraal Banji. It is binding on all courts I only wanted this to to be brought to your notice. Thank you Thank you, sir I'm quite sure that people will understand as to in all the trials sessions warrant and Summons what is the position in respect of this fact as to whether the accused can plead guilty After the commencement of trial. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and keep blessing us with your knowledge as well as otherwise. Thank you