Sama vs State of Mizoram

Lanusungkum Jamir, J.�Heard Mr. S. Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested by the Mamit Police personnel on 13.7.2014 in connection with the alleged seizure of about 60 litres of local made liquor. Subsequently, petitioner was booked under Section 8(1) of the Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Act, 1995. On 13.7.2014, the petitioner was produced before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mamit and he was convicted on the same day on the allegation of the plea of guilt. The petitioner thereafter being aggrieved had filed Criminal Revision No. 40/2014 before the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl which was also dismissed by the order dated 6.8.2014.

Mr. Pradhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while recording the plea of guilt, the petitioner was never informed of his legal rights of engaging a lawyer nor provided with an Amicus Curiae. The petitioner being an illiterate person, the learned Trial Court should have informed the petitioner of his right as well the consequence of pleading guilty. This has not been done and the same amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that learned Appellate Court without appreciating the infirmity committed by the learned Trial Court had just dismissed the revision petition which was also not tenable in law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliances in the case of Zohmingthanga Vs. State of Mizoram, , and in the case of Lalmuanzuala and Others Vs. State of Mizoram, .

Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram submits that when the petitioner has pleaded guilty to the offence charged against him, no further requirement is provided under the law. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner on his plea of guilt by the learned Trial Court is without any infirmity and the same should not be interfered with. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the learned Appellate Court in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case had found it fit not to interfere with the conviction and therefore both the conviction orders as well as the order passed by the learned Appellate Court requires no interference.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that gross injustice have been caused to the petitioner inasmuch as he being an illiterate person, it was a duty bound on the part of the learned Trial Court to have apprised of his right or atleast could have provided an Amicus Curiae to the petitioner. This has not been done.

In the case of Zohmingthanga (supra), this Court has held as under:

"Article 21 declares protection of every person, his life and liberty. No body can be deprived of personal liberty without applying procedure established by law. By series of judgments commencing from Ranchod Mathur Wasawa Vs. State of Gujarat, , Hussainara Khatoon and Others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, ; Khatri and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and Suk Das Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, , legal aid, for such accused who are not even aware of their right as an accused, it is not merely the duty of the Court, but it should be first anxiety of the Court to see that no one is deprived of his liberty without following the procedure established by law."

Further, in the case of Lalmuanzuala (supra) while following the case of Zohmingthanga (supra), this Court had also held as under:

"13. Framing of charge is not an empty formality. The object behind framing of charge is to make the accused aware of the nature and extent of the accusation against him. The accused must be made aware of the consequence of his pleading guilty. It is for this reason that providing legal assistance to the accused is of crucial importance, more particularly, in a warrant procedure case. Section 303, Cr.P.C. mandates that any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court or against whom proceedings are instituted under the Cr.P.C. may of right be defended by a pleader of his choice. If the accused is not represented by a pleader and when it appears to the Court that the accused does not have sufficient means to engage a pleader, under Section 304, Cr.P.C. the Court is required to assign a pleader for the defence of the accused at the expense of the State.

In the present case, when the petitioners admitted to the charge, they did not have the benefit of any legal assistance. It does not appear from the record that they were also made aware of the consequence of their admission.

These defects are not minor defects. They go to the root of the matter and are fatal to the prosecution case, which the learned Revisional Court below appears to have overlooked."

In the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction order dated 14.7.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mamit in connection with Criminal Trial No. 116/2014 under Section 8(1) of the Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Act, 1995 and the order dated 6.8.2014 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40/2014 requires interference and the same are set aside and quashed.

The period spent by the petitioner under detention shall be set off and the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Criminal Petition is allowed. No cost.