The Aryavarth Express
Agency(Punjab): In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed a conviction order, highlighting that when an accused pleads guilty without the assistance of an advocate, there is a risk that their plea may not be fully informed or voluntary, which would violate the principles of fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioners had challenged their conviction under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the grounds that they had pleaded guilty without the opportunity to be represented by a lawyer. Justice Harkesh Manuja, presiding over the case, emphasized that while the petitioners were briefed about the charges against them, the absence of legal representation proved detrimental. This absence denied the petitioners the crucial opportunity to consult with an advocate, thus depriving them of the ability to make informed decisions and act accordingly.
The Court further elaborated that the presence of legal representation ensures that the accused understands the charges against them, the consequences of pleading guilty, and can make informed decisions regarding their defense. The absence of such representation is violative of Article 21, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.
During the hearing, the State counsel referred to the Supreme Court case “Kisan Trimbak Kothula and others vs. State of Maharashtra” \[1977 (1) SCC 300\], submitting that once the petitioners admitted their guilt, they should not be permitted to go back and reagitate the issue on merits. However, the Court noted that as per the legal mandate of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the magistrate could take cognizance only on the basis of a complaint from the concerned official, and the FIR, in this case, was not maintainable.
Justice Manuja also observed that being convicted of an offense can have far-reaching consequences beyond mere penal outcomes, often unforeseen by the average individual. The petitioners, in this case, may have hastily opted to plead guilty as they were only faced with a fine of Rs. 1,000, without fully comprehending the potential ramifications of their actions. The Court opined that if they had been guided by legal counsel, they might have been better informed about the dormant and latent outcomes and repercussions of such a conviction.
The Court relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Mousham v. State, \[CRR No 466 & 467 of 2012\], which underscored that the conviction of any accused without representation by a lawyer amounts to a violation of their fundamental right under Article 21, and their trial has to be held to be vitiated on account of a fatal constitutional infirmity.
In light of these observations, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the FIR and set aside the conviction order, reaffirming the importance of legal representation in ensuring a fair trial and protecting the rights of the accused.