Patna High Court
Mannalal Chaudhary @ Pannalal Chaudhary @ Sunny Ji @ MunnaversusThe Union of India through the Director General of the National Invetigating Agency, Govt. of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the trial court had validly accepted the voluntary guilty pleas in compliance with Sections 228 and 229 CrPC and that the eight‑year imprisonment was a proportionate sentence.
Summary
The Patna High Court heard two appeals filed by Selim S.K. and Mannalal Chaudhary, who had been convicted by a Special Court for offences under Sections 489B, 489C and 120B of the IPC for trafficking counterfeit currency. Both had pleaded guilty under Section 229 of the CrPC and were sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment (with fines) to run concurrently. The appellants contended that their guilty pleas were not voluntary, that they did not fully understand the charges (which were explained in Hindi), and that the sentence was disproportionate given their personal circumstances. The Court examined the statutory requirements for a valid guilty plea – voluntariness, comprehension of charges, clear admission, factual basis and mental competence – and found that the trial court had complied with Sections 228 and 229 of the CrPC, that the confessions were voluntarily submitted, and that the appellants were aware of the consequences. It further held that, considering the gravity of the offences and the maximum prescribed punishment, the eight‑year term was proportionate. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the guilty pleas under Section 229 CrPC – whether they were voluntary, informed and complied with procedural safeguards.
- Whether the trial court correctly applied Sections 228 and 229 of the CrPC in framing charges and accepting the pleas.
- Whether the sentence of eight years’ imprisonment is proportionate to the offences under Sections 489B, 489C and 120B IPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 228, 229
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 489B, 489C
Subjects
- fake currency
- guilty plea
- Section 229 CrPC
- sentencing proportionality
- NIA
- IPC 489B
- IPC 489C
- IPC 120B
- voluntary confession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.348 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2019 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Selim Sk @ Salim Sheikh @ Selim Sheikh, Son of Rejjak Sk @ Rejjak
Sheikh, Resident of village - Ghoshaltola, Deonapur, P.O. - Sabdalpur, P.S. -
Baishnabnagar, Distt. - Malda, State - West Bengal
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home
Affairs, New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 754 of 2025
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4967 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2019 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Mannalal Chaudhary @ Pannalal Chaudhary @ Sunny Ji @ Munna, S/o-
Jhaguru Chaudhary @ Jhanguri Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Bagahi
Nimiya Tola (Neem Ka Tola), P.S.- Bairiya, Dist- West Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India through the Director General of the National Investigating
Agency, Govt. of India, New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 348 of 2023)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Mritunjay, Adv.
For the UOI (NIA) : Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Adv. (ASG)
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, SPP (NIA)
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 754 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
For the UOI (NIA) : Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Adv. (ASG)
Mr. Arvind Kumar, SPP (NIA)
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Parimal, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
2/12
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH)
Date : 08-01-2026
As both the appeals have arisen out of the same
judgment, hence, they are being decided together by a common
judgment.
2. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
appellant in Cr. APP(DB) No. 348/2023, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar,
learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. APP(DB) No. 754/2025,
and Mr. Dr. K. N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
(ASG), assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh and Mr. Arvind
Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutors for the NIA, are
present and have been heard.
3. Both the appeals have been preferred against the
judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2022, by which both the
appellants, along with other co-accused Shahnawaj Shaikh @
Shahnawaj Kasuri @ Shahanoyaj Kasuri, were convicted
mainly on the basis of their plea of guilty under Section 229 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), and the
order of sentence dated 25.02.2022, by which both the
appellants were sentenced for the charged offences under
Sections 489B, 489C and 120B read with Section 489B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’). For the offence under
Section 489B of IPC, both the appellants have been sentenced to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
3/12
undergo imprisonment for eight years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand) each, and in default of payment of fine,
they have been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment
for one month. For the offence under Section 489C of IPC, the
appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
two years. For the offence under Section 120B read with Section
489B of IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for eight years and also directed to pay a fine of
Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each, and in default of
payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. All the sentences have been
directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution story: -
4. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that
one Nitya Nand Chauhan, SHO of Bettiah Town Police Station,
received an information about the presence of a member of an
inter-state racket involved in trafficking and circulation of fake
Indian currency notes in Bettiah, Bihar. On the basis of this
information, on 02.02.2019, a team of police personnel of
Bettiah Town Police Station, led by the said SHO, arrested one
person, namely, Julkar Shaikh, son of Kuddus Shaikh, resident
of village Kumbhira under Police Station Baishabnagar, District
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
4/12
Malda, West Bengal, and also recovered fake Indian currency
notes amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) in the
denomination of Rs. 2,000/- from his possession. After the
recovery and arrest of the said accused, a case was registered
vide Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 118 of 2019 for the offences
under Sections 420, 489A, 489B, 489C, 120B and 34 of IPC on
the complaint of the SHO of Bettiah Town Police Station. After
considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the Central
Government transferred the case to the National Investigation
Agency (in short, ‘NIA’) for investigation, which was re-
registered by the NIA as R.C. No. 04/2019/NIA-DLI dated
21.02.2019. After completion of the investigation, the NIA
charge-sheeted the appellants and others vide charge-sheet Nos.
11-B of 2019 dated 11.06.2020 and 11-C of 2020 dated
31.12.2020. The Special Court took cognizance of the alleged
offences on 21.05.2019, and on 22.02.2022, the case was taken
up by the trial court for framing charges against the appellants
and co-accused Shahnawaj Shaikh. Accordingly, charges were
framed for the offences under Sections 489B, 489C and 120B
read with Section 489B of IPC against the appellants. Both the
appellants pleaded guilty to the offences charged, and
consequently, they were convicted of the charged offences and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
5/12
sentenced accordingly.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants :-
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Mannalal Chaudhary @ Pannalal Chaudhary @ Sunny Ji @
Munna, in Cr. APP(DB) No. 754 of 2025, submits that the
impugned judgment does not state the nature of the charges
against the appellant and also does not disclose as to whether
any recovery was made from the appellant Mannalal Chaudhary
or not. The contents of the charges, which are said to have been
explained to the appellant, have not been discussed in the
impugned judgment. The impugned judgment does not state that
the proportionality of the imprisonment was explained to the
appellant when he accepted his guilt. The sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the appellant is disproportionate to his
conduct and, further, the trial court did not take into
consideration the circumstances which might have been relevant
to mitigate the quantum of punishment. On this aspect, the trial
court did not apply its judicial mind. The said appellant has
three sons, his wife is a housewife having no source of income,
and his father is aged about 80 years, who is suffering from old-
age ailments, and the appellant is the sole breadwinner of his
family. The appellant wants to reform himself and become a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
6/12
good and responsible citizen of this country, and in view of this
reformative intention, he pleaded guilty, but the learned trial
court awarded him eight years of imprisonment for the charged
offences punishable under Sections 489B and 120B read with
489B of the IPC, which is at the upper end of the prescribed
punishment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant Selim SK @
Salim Sheikh @ Selim Sheikh, in Cr. APP(DB) No. 348/2023,
submits that the said appellant pleaded his guilt under forced
circumstances, as he saw the only hope in accepting the offer
of admitting his guilt so as to end his apathy, as such, he
succumbed to such an offer, which is contrary to the
established principles of law. The appellant is not well-versed
in the Hindi language and knows English and Bengali only, but
the charges were explained to him in the Hindi language, and
further, his plea of guilty was not recorded by the trial court. It
is further submitted that the trial court’s judgment does not
depict the appellant’s admission of all the relevant facts
constituting the charged offences and, further, he was unable to
understand the consequences of his plea of guilt. In this regard,
no proper steps were taken by the trial court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
7/12
Submissions on behalf of the NIA: -
7. On the other hand, Mr. Dr. K. N. Singh, learned
ASG appearing for the NIA, submits that the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence awarded to the appellants are
right and legal, as the learned trial court followed all the
mandatory provisions of Sections 228 and 229 of the Cr.P.C.
while framing the charges against the appellants and convicting
and sentencing them upon acceptance of their guilt under
Section 229 of the Cr.P.C.
Consideration, analysis and conclusion : -
8. We have heard both sides, perused the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, and the trial
court’s records. The short point for consideration before us in
both the appeals is the legality of the conviction of the
appellants and the appropriateness of the quantum of sentence
awarded to them. When an accused person pleads guilty before
a court then before accepting such plea, the following essential
requirements must be followed to ensure that the plea is valid.
The court must act with caution and circumspection.
8.1. The first requirement is voluntariness. The plea
must be made freely and not as a result of any coercion, threat,
or false promise. In the instant matter, the appellants were
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
8/12
produced before the trial court on 22.02.2022. On that day,
charges were framed against them for the offences under
Sections 489B, 489C and 120B read with Section 489B of the
IPC. The trial court records go to show that the said charges
were read over and explained in Hindi to the appellants. The
said fact was also recorded by the trial court in the order-sheet
dated 22.02.2022. Neither before the trial court nor before this
Court the appellants have shown any convincing material or
circumstances to prove that they pleaded guilty under any
coercion, threat, or false promise.
8.2. Here, it is important to mention that before
pleading guilty, the appellant Mannalal Chaudhary wrote his
confession in the Hindi language in typed form and sent the
same to the trial court through the Jail Superintendent, Adarsh
Central Jail, Beur, Patna, on 22.01.2022, and a similar
confession was made by the other appellant, namely, Selim SK,
which was received by the trial court on 24.01.2022. As the
appellants were not being represented by their advocates at that
time, the learned trial court provided them legal services
through the Panel Advocate of the District Legal Services
Authority to represent them. At the request of the appellants, the
trial court fixed their case for hearing on their confession
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
9/12
petitions as well as for framing of charges, and that order was
passed on 16.02.2022. Thereafter, the case of the appellants was
taken up on 22.02.2022, and on that day, the charges were
framed against them. Between 16.02.2022 and 22.02.2022, there
was sufficient time for the appellants to reconsider their decision
to confess, but they remained firm in their decision.
8.3. The appellant Mannalal Chaudhary has also faced
trial in another Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2019 at Kolkata for the
same kind of alleged offences, in which he also pleaded guilty
and was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six years, with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-
for the offence under Sections 489B/120B of IPC, and also
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, with
a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Sections 489C/120B
of IPC. That conviction was recorded on 15.03.2024, after the
conviction in the present matter. This fact shows that the said
appellant is a habitual offender of committing the offences
relating to fake Indian currency notes, and his repeated pleading
of guilty shows his voluntariness in making such pleas.
8.4. The appellant Selim SK, who also sent his
confession to the trial court through the Jail Superintendent,
Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna, made his signature in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
10/12
English language on his typed confession, and during the course
of hearing before this Court, his learned counsel has revealed
that he knows English. The charges were framed against the said
appellant in English language, therefore, it cannot be deemed
that he could not have understood those charges. Further, the
trial court mentioned in the impugned judgment that the
appellants were given sufficient time to rethink and were
explained all the consequences of their pleading of guilty, but
they “unmistakably, unequivocally and without any reservation
whatsoever have admitted to the fact that they are responsible
for the offences with which they are being charged and they are
also fully aware of the consequences of their pleading of guilty,”
and they have repeatedly prayed for leniency of the court. The
said observation made by the trial court is sufficient to show and
prove that both the appellants pleaded their guilt voluntarily.
8.5. The second requirement is that the accused must
fully understand the nature of the charges and the essential
elements of the offence they are admitting to, and the
consequences of the plea.
8.6. The third key requirement is that the plea must be
clear, plain, and an unqualified admission of guilt.
8.7. The fourth requirement is that the court must be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
11/12
satisfied that the admitted facts actually support the legal
elements of the offence.
8.8. The fifth requirement is that the accused, while
pleading guilty, must be mentally competent to understand the
proceedings and that the proper procedure prescribed by law has
been followed by the trial court.
9. In the present matter, in view of the aforesaid
circumstances under which the appellants pleaded their guilt,
the satisfaction of the trial court recorded in the impugned
judgment, the contents of the charges, and the trial court’s
judicial approach while framing the charges and explaining the
same to the appellants are sufficient to draw the inference that
both the appellants had fully understood the nature of the
charges framed against them and the consequences of their plea
of guilty, and their plea was a clear and unqualified admission of
guilt. The procedure mentioned in Section 228 of the Cr.P.C., as
well as the provisions of Sections 228 and 229 of the Cr.P.C.,
appear to have been followed by the learned trial court while
framing the charges and accepting the appellants’ plea of guilty.
9.1. So far as the circumstances stated above by the
appellants’ counsels, which according to them were mitigating
circumstances warranting punishment of imprisonment at the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 2023 dt.08-01-2026
12/12
lower end, are concerned, we are of the view that although the
learned trial court has not mentioned the said mitigating
circumstances in the impugned judgment, however, in view of
the nature of the charged offences as well as the maximum
punishment of imprisonment prescribed for the charged
offences, the punishment of imprisonment for eight years
awarded to the appellants appears to be proportionate to the
nature and gravity of the offences committed by them. There is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order.
We find no merit in both the appeals, accordingly, they stand
dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.01.2026
Transmission Date 17.01.2026
Checking your session…