- (1.) THE order dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (I.E. Act) and Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Nadia recording that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charge and sentence imposed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months has been assailed. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not pleaded guilty and the same would be evident from the head of charge which was recorded by the learned trial Judge and is a part of the record. He further submitted that in view of ex facie error apparent on the face of the record, this Court may exercise its power of superintendence to set aside the patently illegal order.
(2.) MR . Banerjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that fine had been paid in terms of the impugned order and, therefore, the petitioner ought not to be permitted to assail the order of conviction and sentence in terms of Section 375 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
(3.) IT is true that Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia, bars the accused persons from preferring an appeal against conviction recorded by a Court on the plea of guilty. However, appellate jurisdiction of the Court has not been invoked in this case. The petitioner had sought to invoke the inherent powers of this Court in view of the patent error evident on the face of the record. I find from a perusal of the records that the contention of the petitioner is correct. Charge was read out and explained to the petitioner and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Such fact is recorded in a separate sheet wherein the head of charges has been set out. For effective adjudication of the case, I reproduce the head of charge and the contents recorded therein. "I Sri S. N. Chatterjee, Judge, Special Court, Electricity Act hereby charge i) Samir Kr. Saha ii) Bikas Ch. Saha as follows - that You, on or about the 17th day of September 2002 at Muragachha in your premises, were detected to have been consuming electric energy dishonestly by illegal means of tampering the domestic service metr no. 22272692 and caused loss of revenue of the WBSEB. and thereby committed an offence under of Session. 39(1)1/E within my cognizance. The contents of charge is read over and explained to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried of the offences.";