2017 (10) TMI 1654 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction Overturned Due to Procedural Non-Compliance: Accurate Recording of Plea Found Essential for Legal Validity.

The SC set aside the Appellant's conviction under Section 252 of CrPC and Section 9(1) of the A.P. Gaming Act due to non-compliance with Section 243 of ... Conviction u/s 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - conviction not recorded in accordance with law - violation of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant upon the judgment of this Court in the case of KAUSHALYA DAS VERSUS STATE OF MADRAS [1965 (5) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT], wherein this Court reproduced the observations of the learned Magistrate, where it was held that 'Section 362(2)(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code has no application in a case where the accused pleads guilty and the special provision of s. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be attracted in such a case. Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a provision of a special character and according to well-established rule of interpretation that special provision will take precedence and override the general provision of s. 362(2)(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code.' The conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable - the conviction of the Appellant is set aside - appeal disposed off. Issues involved: Conviction u/s 252 of CrPC and u/s 9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act, validity of conviction, compliance with Section 243 of CrPC.The Appellant was convicted u/s 252 of CrPC and u/s 9(1) of the A.P. Gaming Act for conducting matka near a specified location. The Principal Sessions Judge set aside the imprisonment but upheld the conviction, imposing a fine. The High Court rejected the revision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.The main contention raised was the validity of the conviction due to the way it was recorded. The Appellant's counsel argued that the conviction was not in accordance with the law, specifically mentioning a violation of Section 243 of the CrPC. The Additional Judicial Magistrate had not recorded the exact words used by the Appellant during the plea.The Appellant's counsel relied on a previous judgment by the Supreme Court which emphasized the importance of recording the admission of the accused 'as nearly as possible in the words used by him,' as mandated by Section 243 of the CrPC. The Court held that strict compliance with this section is crucial as it ensures the proper administration of justice and safeguards the right of appeal for the accused. Failure to adhere to this requirement renders the conviction legally invalid.In light of the non-compliance with Section 243 of the CrPC, the Supreme Court concluded that the conviction of the Appellant was not sustainable. Therefore, the Court set aside the conviction and disposed of the appeal accordingly.