IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31389 of 2009(Q) -------------------------- CC.96/2008 of J.M.F.C.,ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- C.U.KAMALUDHEEN, S/O.USHMIYAKHAN, VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O THEKKADYMUKKU. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.S.JALEEL, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, PUTHANPURACKAL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA - 2. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 31389 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to have Ext.P5 quashed by a writ of certiorari. 2. Petitioner is involved in C.C. No.96 of 2008 of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Erattupetta for having committed offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was taken cognizance of and summons was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner entered appearance. The amount covered by the cheque was for Rs.90,000/-. 3. In the complaint, it is stated that all legal formalities were complied with and inspite of notice, no amount was repaid. After taking necessary steps, the case was posted for evidence. Petitioner says that he is an illiterate man and he did not know the various proceedings in court. However, he happened to sign a WPC. 31389/2009. 2 document. Petitioner would say that he was unaware of the consequence of that act and did not know the document on which he had signed and he was unaware of the result also. He would say that he had no opportunity to consult his counsel before signing the document. It is also pointed out that the necessary procedures were not followed. 4. It appears that the accused availed of plea bargain. 5. None of the above contentions can be accepted. Prima facie, there is nothing to show that everything was done behind the petitioner and the petitioner was not made aware of the contents. It is to be noticed that the amount covered by the cheque was for Rs.90,000/- and on the basis of the document signed by the petitioner, the court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/-. A default clause was also incorporated to the effect that in case the amount was not paid, the petitioner had to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. WPC. 31389/2009. 3 6. True that in Ext.P2 he had denied the transaction. But whatever that be, at the time of trial, he chose to avail the plea bargain and availed the benefit thereof. After having done so, it has come with little grace from the petitioner that he was unaware of the consequence and unaware of the proceedings. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner was represented by a counsel and his counsel had also signed in the document. It is therefore clear that it was after having fully been satisfied that the plea was voluntary that the court below had accepted the same as can be seen from the records made available to this court. Under such circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The writ petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.