Srinagar, July 17, KDC: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that admission of a cheque, acknowledgment of the signature on it, or even part payment of the disputed amount does not by itself amount to a plea of guilt sufficient to convict an accused. The Court ruled that a conviction based on a plea of guilt can be recorded only where the admission is “unqualified, unambiguous, clear and voluntary”, observing that strict compliance with the procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory because such a conviction deprives the accused of the statutory right to appeal.
Justice Sanjay Dhar made the observations while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Adil Ahmad Sofi, who challenged concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Magistrate had sentenced him to one year’s simple imprisonment and directed payment of Rs 19.20 lakh as compensation after treating his statement under Section 251 CrPC as a plea of guilt. The conviction was subsequently affirmed in appeal.
The prosecution arose from the dishonour of a cheque for Rs 9.60 lakh allegedly issued towards a business liability. When his plea was recorded before the trial court, the petitioner admitted issuing the cheque but maintained that it had been handed over as security during business dealings between the parties. He further said that accounts remained unsettled and that payment would be made only after receiving his own dues from the complainant.
Justice Dhar held that these statements did not amount to an admission of guilt. The Court observed that while the petitioner admitted issuing the cheque and signing it, he never accepted the existence of a legally enforceable debt nor acknowledged an unconditional liability to honour the cheque, both of which are essential ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The court said that Sections 251 and 252 of the Code require a Magistrate to clearly explain the accusation to the accused and record the plea as nearly as possible in the accused’s own words. Justice Dhar observed that these safeguards are matters of substance rather than mere procedural formalities because a conviction recorded on a plea of guilt bars the accused from filing an appeal under Section 375 of the Code. For that reason, the Court said, the Magistrate must be satisfied that the plea is voluntary, unequivocal and free from ambiguity before recording a conviction.
The High Court also found that the trial court had failed to put all the essential ingredients of the offence to the accused while recording his plea. In particular, the allegation relating to service of the statutory demand notice, a mandatory requirement for prosecution under Section 138, had not been put to him. The omission, the Court held, rendered the alleged plea incapable of sustaining a conviction.
Rejecting the complainant’s contention that payment of Rs 50,000 during the pendency of the complaint amounted to an admission of liability, Justice Dhar held that part payment could not substitute an unqualified plea of guilt, especially when the accused had consistently maintained that reciprocal business claims between the parties remained to be settled.
The Court further held that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because appeals against convictions based on a plea of guilt are barred under Section 375 of the Code. Since the trial court had erroneously treated the petitioner’s statement as a plea of guilt, the appellate judgment also could not be sustained.
Allowing the revision petition, Justice Dhar set aside the judgments of both courts and remanded the complaint to the trial Magistrate for fresh proceedings in accordance with law. (KDC)
