Petition challenging cheque dishonour conviction dismissed after petitioner pleaded guilty under Sections 251-252 CrPC

The Delhi HC dismissed a petition challenging conviction for cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds. The petitioner had pleaded guilty but argued that proper procedure under Sections 251 and 252 of Cr.P.C. was not followed. The court distinguished this case from precedents where guilty pleas were improperly recorded, noting that here the notice was unambiguous and the plea was clearly recorded in the petitioner's own words. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the Order dated 27.05.2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petition.
2. Validity of conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Procedural compliance under Sections 251 and 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. Plea of guilty by the petitioner and its implications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Order dated 27.05.2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petition:
The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order dated 14.12.2021 by the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) convicting him under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dismissed this revision petition on 27.05.2022, leading to the current petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The ASJ observed that the petitioner, being educated and represented by counsel, did not raise any objections regarding his plea of guilt until after the sentencing order was passed. The ASJ upheld the MM's order, finding no illegality or irregularity.

2. Validity of conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The MM sentenced the petitioner to three months of simple imprisonment and directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/- to the complainant, with an additional one month of simple imprisonment in default of payment. The petitioner argued that he mistakenly pleaded guilty and that the notice was not properly explained to him. However, the court found that the petitioner understood the notice and pleaded guilty consciously, as evidenced by his representation by counsel and the clear language of the notice.

3. Procedural compliance under Sections 251 and 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The petitioner contended that the MM did not follow the correct procedure under Sections 251 and 252 of the Cr.P.C., which require the notice to be explained to the accused in a language they understand. The court examined the notice and found it to be clear and unambiguous. The petitioner's plea of guilty was recorded in his own words, satisfying the procedural requirements. The court referred to several judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasizing the importance of recording the exact words of the accused when they plead guilty.

4. Plea of guilty by the petitioner and its implications:
The petitioner pleaded guilty when the notice was framed on 12.10.2021, stating that he did not wish to claim trial. This plea was recorded in clear terms, and the petitioner was represented by counsel who did not object. The court noted that the petitioner had pleaded not guilty in two other complaints listed on the same day, indicating that he understood the implications of his plea. The petitioner only protested against the plea of guilt after the conviction and sentencing order was passed on 14.12.2021, which the court viewed as an afterthought.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The court upheld the conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing that the plea of guilty was recorded properly and in compliance with procedural requirements. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent and surrender before the MM within one week. Additionally, the amount deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of the court was ordered to be released to the respondent, adjusted towards the costs and fine imposed.

---