SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 9.11.2010 passed by the learned ASJ in a revision petition preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 31.7.2009, passed by the trial court, by which the Petitioner/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 409/420/120B IPC, on the basis of his voluntarily plea of guilt. The Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him, which was 11 months, for all the offences with concurrent effect. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India preferred a revision petition, wherein the learned ASJ vide impugned order dated 09.11.2010 observed that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner was too meager and having regard to the gravity of the offences and the fact that Section 409 IPC provides a punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for period upto 10 years with fine, it was held that adequate sentence ought to have been awarded to the Petitioner, so that the same would have a deterrent effect on the society at large. Taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner had served less than one year of conviction, the order on sentence dated 31.7.2009 was set aside, while remanding the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration on the point of sentence.

(2.) In the present case, the accused is charged with the offences of leakage of question papers of Common Proficiency Test Examination relating to Chartered Accountant Course conducted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Apart from the Petitioner, there are three other accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, the Petitioner herein pleaded guilty but did not claim trial, as a result of which, the aforesaid order dated 31.7.2009 was passed by the learned ACMM.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner states that the learned ASJ has completely ignored the principle that once the Petitioner had pleaded guilty and the trial court had awarded sentence, any directions for enhancement of sentence awarded to the Petitioner is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the trial court has been directed to confine itself on the point of order on sentence due to which the Petitioner would not have any opportunity to defend himself against the charge on merits. It is further stated that the Petitioner ought to be given an opportunity to defend himself in accordance with law and only thereafter should an order on sentence be passed with regard to him. In other words, the Petitioner seeks a complete remand of both the order on sentence and order of conviction. In support of his submission, he relies on a judgment in the case of Thippeswamy v. State of Karnataka, 1983 AIR(SC) 747.