GULAB KARIM SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Articles 21 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence dated 9th January, 1995, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Bombay. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 750/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Mundargi for the petitioner. Also perused the proceedings. It appears that the accused pleaded guilty of the charge, when his plea was recorded. He was arrested on the previous day i. e. on 8th January, 1995 at 6. 45 p. m. near Wadala Station Road, as he was driving B. E. S. T. Bus No. MRR/1894, allegedly after consuming alcohol. He was examined in J. J. Hospital. Doctor opined that accused had consumed alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol when he was driving the said bus. He was kept in custody for one day and was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Bombay. Chargesheet was filed on the same day. When he was produced before the learned Magistrate, he was asked whether he was pleading guilty to the charge, and he pleaded guilty to the same. Accordingly, his plea of guilt was recorded and the learned Magistrate accepted the said plea and convicted him under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 750/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. However, after approaching this Court, the petitioner obtained stay of the order at the time of admission of this writ petition.

(3.) MR. Mundargi, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when he pleaded guilty to the charge, he was shown allurement by the police constable on duty that he would be let off with a light sentence if he pleaded guilty, and therefore, when he was produced before the Magistrate, he pleaded guilty. Mr. Mundargi also relied upon 1980 (3) S. C. C. 120 (Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh v. State of Gujarat), wherein, the Supreme Court has expressly condemned the practice of plea bargaining and recording the plea of guilt by the accused on showing them some allurement and thus, inducing them to confess to a plea of guilt. Mr. Mundargi therefore prays that the matter be remanded back to the learned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law, as the plea recorded by the Magistrate is illegal and violates the spirit of the Constitution.