Posted On by &filed under Top Law News.


The sessions court asked a trial court to reconsider its order for five days’ jail term to a man for drunken driving on his plea that he had pleaded guilty to the offence without consulting his advocate.

In his appeal, North West Delhi resident Umeet Kumar, who had been sentenced to a fine of Rr 3,400 too, had contended that his guilty plea too was not recorded separately by the trial court.

Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Goyal ordered reconsideration of the case after examining the summary trial register which did not specifically said that convict had pleaded guilty.

“Photocopy of summary trial register was called, in which, in an entry dated September 27, signatures of appellant (Kumar) are appearing only and nowhere it is mentioned that he had pleaded guilty to the sections charged against him.

“So, to my mind, it was not appropriate and could not have been relied upon by the learned trial court that Kumar had pleaded guilty, when the words “I plead guilty” are neither appearing in the summary trial register nor in the traffic challan receipt (TCR) anywhere, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

The judge said, “The same being improper is hereby set aside”


Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of
avatar
wpDiscuz