A Delhi court recently set aside the conviction of an accused who pleaded guilty after he told the court that he was not “legally well represented” and was not informed of the consequences of pleading guilty.
Additional Sessions Judge Jagmohan Singh of Rohini court remanded the matter back to the trial court with a direction to frame the charge afresh, to take on record the accused’s plea of guilt or otherwise afresh, and then to proceed with the case as per law.
The direction came on July 2 after the court concluded that while the trial court took on record his plea of guilt and he was convicted based on it, there was nothing in the trial court’s order “to suggest that appellant/convict Mohd Ahmad was explained about the consequences of his pleading guilty or about the quantum of sentence provided under the law or that he was liable to be convicted on the plea of guilt”.
Ahmad, represented by advocate Aman Naqvi, had appealed against a magistrate court’s order where he was convicted for the offence punishable under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 411 (dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property) on April 15, 2024, for the period already undergone by him in judicial custody, which was three months.
In 2023, he was booked for being in possession of 28 kg of ganja while riding a bike. After being apprehended, when he failed to produce the papers for the bike, the police registered two cases: one at the Crime Branch under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and another for allegedly stealing the bike at the Prashant Vihar police station.
Although represented by a legal aid counsel through the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) system before the magistrate court regarding the alleged theft of a bike, the sessions court was told that he was not informed of the consequences of pleading guilty and that “effective legal aid” was not provided. It was also highlighted that the counsel on behalf of LADC kept changing at every hearing, which is against the Supreme Court directions.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Ashok vs the State of Uttar Pradesh in December 2024, held that “it is necessary to ensure that the same legal aid advocate is continued throughout the trial unless there are compelling reasons to do so or unless the accused appoints an advocate of his choice”.
Story continues below this ad
The apex court had also held that “legal aid must be effective”, observing, “As there is a constitutional right to legal aid, that right will be effective only if the legal aid provided is of a good quality. If the legal aid advocate provided to an accused is not competent enough to conduct the trial efficiently, the rights of the accused will be violated.”
Allowing Ahmad’s appeal, where he sought to withdraw his plea of guilt, the sessions court sent the case back to the magistrate court for fresh consideration.
