The STATE through 9 ANF Gilgit vs NAZIR REHMAT and another
This appeal was filed by the State against a judgment of the Special Judge, CNSA Gilgit, which convicted two respondents for narcotics possession (one kilogram of charas each) and sentenced them to the period already undergone plus a fine. The State sought enhancement of the sentence, arguing the trial court took an overly lenient view. The respondents argued they were from poor families and that the conviction should stand. Upon review, the Court noted a procedural irregularity: the trial court failed to strictly adhere to Section 265-E of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates specific procedures for recording a plea of guilt. However, the Court observed that the accused had indeed pleaded guilty at the time of the charge framing. Determining that a harsh view would not serve the interests of justice and that the trial court's judgment was otherwise just, the Court dismissed the State's appeal, maintaining the original sentence despite the technical procedural defect.
- Does a failure to strictly follow the procedure for recording a plea of guilt under Section 265-E of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically invalidate a conviction?
- Can an appellate court maintain a conviction despite a technical procedural defect in the trial court's judgment?
- Is the appellate court bound to enhance a sentence if the trial court has taken a lenient view of a plea of guilt?
- Section 265-E, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The instant appeal has been filed against the respondents/accused against order/judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, CNSA Gilgit in Sessions case No, 24/2017 whereby the respondents were convicted and awarded the punishment of the period already under gone with a fine of Rs, 30,000/-(thirty thousand).
2. The State being aggrieved from the order/judgment dated 05-05-2017 has challenging the validity/propriety of the impugned judgment/order.
3. The brief facts of the case as reflected in the FIR No, 04/2017 dated 21-03-2017 and in the judgment dated 05-05-2017 are that one kilogram charas was recovered from the possession of each of the respondents. The challan of the case was submitted on 06-04-2017 but the date has wrongly been mentioned as 06.03.2017. The notices were issued to the respondents/accused for 21- 04-2017 for their attendance. On 21-04-2017 the learned Special Prosecutor was absent and case was posted on 05-05-2017 for further proceedings. On 05-05-2017 the accused pleaded guilty and the learned trial Court accepted their plea of guilt and convicted them as stated supra. The learned Special Prosecutor for ANF stated that a lenient view has been taken by the learned trial Court which will encourage the likeminded criminals and pray that the same judgment may be set aside and the sentence of respondents be enhanced.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the accused belongs to poor families and no useful purpose will be served if the order of learned trial Court is set aside and the respondents/accused are convicted and committed to judicial custody.
5. We heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. The accused pleaded guilty at the very outset at the time of framing of charge. We observed that there is a legal defect in the impugned judgment/order, which has not been pointed out by either of the parties. Under section 265(E), Cr.P.C. the Court is required to explain the charge against the accused and if the accused pleads guilty the court shall record the plea and may in his discretion convict him, thereon, which has been not done in the instant case.
6. However, keeping in view that the accused pleaded guilty at the time of framing charge. The Courts of the country have always taken a lenient view in such like cases. A harsh view by this Court will not advance the cause of justice and the judgment of the trial Court except the above technical defects is just and proper and we maintained the same.
7. The Appeal No, 24/2017 is dismissed being meritless.