When Accused Pleads Guilty In Absence Of Lawyer, There's A Risk That Such A Plea May Not Be Fully Informed Or Voluntary: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside a conviction order observing that when an accused pleads guilty but is not represented by an advocate, "there is a risk that their plea may not be fully informed or voluntary which would violate the principles of fair trial as enshrined in Article 21."

The petitioners had challenged their conviction under Section 188 IPC on the ground that they pleaded guilty without having opportunity to be represented by a lawyer.

Justice Harkesh Manuja said, "the petitioners were briefed about the charges against them, the absence of legal representation proved detrimental. This absence denied the petitioners the crucial opportunity to consult with an advocate, thus depriving them of the ability to make informed decisions and act accordingly."

Adding that the absence of representation is violative of Article 21, the Court said, "The presence of legal representation ensures that the accused understands the charges against them, the consequences of pleading guilty, and can make informed decisions regarding their defense."

The Court was hearing plea to quash FIR and conviction order under Section 188 IPC. It was argued that FIR was concluded and challan was filed against the petitioners on 29 March, 2023. On the same date, the petitioners, without being represented by the Advocate, pleaded themselves guilty and were thus convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000 each and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days.

State counsel while referring to the Supreme Court case “Kisan Trimbak Kothula and others vs. State of Maharashtra” [1977 (1) SCC 300], submitted that once the petitioners admitted themselves guilty, they were not to be permitted to go back and reagitate the issue on merits.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the as per the legal mandate of Section 195 CrPC, magistrate could take cognizance only on the basis of a complaint from the concerned official and FIR in this case was not maintainable.

Justice Manuja also noted that petitioners were not represented by any advocate when the order of conviction was passed against when they pleaded guilty and stated that being convicted of an offense can have far-reaching consequences beyond mere penal outcomes, often unforeseen by the average individual.

"In this particular instance, it seems the petitioners opted to plead guilty, perhaps hastily, as they were only faced with a fine of Rs. 1000, without fully comprehending the potential ramifications of their actions. If they had been guided by legal counsel, they might have been better informed about the dormant and latent outcomes and repercussions of such a conviction," opined the Court.

"The order dated 29.03.2013 clearly indicates that in the present case, the chargesheet was filed on the same day, followed promptly by the framing of charges. While it is noted in the order that the petitioners were briefed about the charges against them, the absence of legal representation proved detrimental," it added.

Reliance was placed on Delhi High Court's decision in Mousham v. State, [CRR No 466 & 467 of 2012] to underscore that conviction of any accused without representation by a lawyer amounts to violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 and his trial has to be held to be vitiated on account of a fatal constitutional infirmity.

In light of the above, the Court quashed the FIR and set aside the conviction order.

Title: Munish Kumar Dhawan and another v. State of UT Chandigarh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 120

P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate with Bhavi Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Rajiv Vij, Addl. Public Prosecutor,

for respondent-UT Chandigarh.

Click here to read/download the order