GOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Accused No. 1 has preferred the revision against the order of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu in C.A. No. 27/92, confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukkundram, convicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under S. 5 (i) of Arms Act read with 25 (i) (a) of Arms Act, as amended by Act 1983 imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and also under S. 3 of the Arms Act read with 25 (1-B) of Arms Act imposing rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :-On 24-7-91 near Buckingkham Canal one km. away from Ceylon Refugee Camp at Salavan Kuppam, the petitioner and another person were in possession of the arms without any valid licence. The charge sheet was filed against them and they pleaded guilty to the charge and based on this, they were convicted and aggrieved against this, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and the Appeal was also dismissed and aggrieved against this, the present revision is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plea of policy by the petitioner is not voluntary and he had been made to plead guilty promising that he would be let off with the fine. The docket entry filed also would show that even on the date when the charge sheet filed i.e. on 26-5-92, the memo has been filed pleading guilty. The counsel who appeared for the petitioner also filed an affidavit, pointing out the circumstance under which the memo was filed. In view of the decision in Thippeswamy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 747 : (1983 Cri LJ 1271), the plea bargaining is illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. No summons were also issued to the petitioner for appearance on 26-5-92, thereby indicating that there was influence on the part of the police against the petitioner. Both the courts below wrongly came to the conclusion and ultimately convicted the petitioner without giving any opportunity.