STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARDEVBHAI AMRUTLAL BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appears to be a case of plea bargain. At the initial stage, from the record, it does not appear that plea has been recorded. In two cases, subsequently evidence is recorded and that too incomplete. Even the examination-in- chief is incomplete. What inspired the accused to plead guilty all of a sudden in between? It was the duty of the trial Court, after receipt of the record from the learned additional Sessions Judge, to record the plea, which has not been recorded in these cases. That indicates total non-application of mind. The cases were to be tried as a warrant and as per the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has not been done. It appears that after reaching certain stage, accused pleaded guilty. As per the decision in the case of Jayanti Luxman (supra), once the trial proceeds, learned Magistrate cannot convict the accused without recording and appreciating the evidence. Though the trial Court has observed that it is very serious crime, and that public funds are misused by the accused, the trial Court has awarded punishment of only six months rigorous imprisonment and fine. The result is that in all the cases, by-passing an order of concurrent sentence, accused is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months without fully recording the evidence and without appreciating the evidence and without giving an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses for misappropriation of Rs. 1.68 lakhs. Mr. Jadeja, learned Advocate for the respondent-accused submitted that opportunity was not given to the accused and he has pleaded guilty and fair trial requires to take place before rendering decisions as to the guilt of the accused or otherwise. (Para 6)