CRM No. M 6962 of 2010 1 v. State of Haryana

Mr. S M Wadhera, Advocate for the petitioner -.-

3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda with further prayer to direct the JMIC to pass an appropriate order under Section 241 Cr.P.C. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner complainant lodged a complaint with the police against Ravinder Singh Kadan and Sharda Kadan for stealing the mregin sawing machines (imported), three local sawing machines, two debiting machines, opener, iron bars (Girder), sheets, wooden platforms, scissors for cutting metals etc. from the factory premises at Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda. On the basis of the said CRM No. M 6962 of 2010 2 complaint FIR No. 37 dated 06.05.2007 was registered under Sections 406/34 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda. Police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused in the court of competent jurisdiction for the trial of the accused. The plea of the accused Ravinder Singh Kadan to the question was recorded as under:- “Q:-Do you plead guilty and not trial? Ans: I plead guilty and not claim trial. An application was also moved by the present petitioner praying that an appropriate order under Section 241 Cr.P.C. should be passed as the respondent accused had pleaded guilty and claimed no trial. After the filing of the said application dated 20.08.2009 by the petitioner complainant, accused-Ravinder Singh Kadan also filed an application praying for recording the correct plea of the accused applicant as his plea previously had not been recorded correct. Both the applications were disposed of by a common order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the JMIC by recording as under:- “From the interim order dated 20.05.2009, it is apparent that the accused pleaded not guilty and thus the order prosecution witnesses were summoned for 20.08.2009. While recording the plea of accused inadvertently due to typographical mistake in the plea of accused Ravinder Singh Kadan, it was mentioned that accused plead guilty and not claim trial. This is totally typographical mistake which went unnoticed on that date by accused as well as by the Court. As it cannot be expected that after having argued at length, the accused would plead guilty and he having pleaded guilty the Court without noticing the same fixes the same for prosecution evidence. If he had intentionally pleaded guilty then why should be move CRM No. M 6962 of 2010 3 such application now. Moreover, the accused moved the application without any delay i.e. on the very next date of hearing. The contention of the ld counsel for the complainant that the accused is well educated person and the plea was read over to accused is not good enough, to ignore the chances of such like mistakes. Moreover, it is settled principle that act of court should not prejudice any person. Therefore, in view of above discussion, I am of the view that due to mistake in recording the plea of accused Ravinder Singh Kadan it has been mentioned that he pleads guilty. Therefore, his plea be recorded again.” The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that there was no provision of law in the whole of Criminal Procedure Cope for allowing an application like the one filed by the accused for recording his plea again and that the same tantamounts to exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court which jurisdiction it did not have. It is further stated that the accused respondent was an Army Officer in the rank of Colonel of the Indian Army and had done his schooling from a renowned school and is well versed with the English language. He was clear of the charge and the cross question and the answers were read over to him and he had accepted the same as correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length. I find no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court which recorded the plea of the respondent was satisfied that it was a typographical mistake and held that inadvertently it was recorded 'I plead guilty and not claim trial' instead of 'I plead not CRM No. M 6962 of 2010 4 guilty and claim trial.' The basis on which the court came to the conclusion that it was a typographical error, are rather convincing. The fact that it was a typographical mistake is further evident from the fact that other accused was the wife of the respondent-Ravinder Singh Kadan. Similar, allegations were made against her and her plea was correctly recorded, which is as under:- “Q. Do you plead guilty or claim trial? Ans: I plead not guilty and claim trial.” It is also evident from the proceedings dated 25.05.2009 that the case was hotly contested by the respondent- Ravinder Singh Kadan against the framing of the charge. Therefore, it is established that the same was a typographical error. Once the Court is satisfied that it is a typographical error, there is no impediment in the way of the Court to correct the same. In view of the fact that it is evident that the error in question has crept in due to typographical mistake, provisions of Section 241 Cr.P.C. are not attracted. There is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order dated

30.09.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda. Dismissed. March 09, 2010 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge