The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a criminal conviction based on a plea of guilt cannot stand unless the accused makes a clear, voluntary and unconditional admission of every ingredient of the offence. Holding that the trial court had wrongly treated a limited statement as a confession, Justice Sanjay Dhar set aside the conviction of Adil Ahmad Sofi in a cheque dishonour case and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing before the trial court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Javid Ahmad Sofi under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that a cheque for ₹9.60 lakh issued by the petitioner towards business dues had been dishonoured.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chadoora, convicted the petitioner on 12 July 2023 and sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹19.20 lakh, payable as compensation. The Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam, later upheld that conviction, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court through a revision petition.
Before the trial court, the petitioner had admitted issuing the cheque but maintained that it had been handed over as a security cheque during business dealings. He also claimed that the parties still had to settle accounts and stated that payment would be made only after receiving his own share from the respondent.
Court's Observations
The High Court examined the procedure prescribed under Sections 251 and 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summons cases. Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that a magistrate can record a conviction on a plea of guilt only when the admission is voluntary, unqualified, unambiguous and clearly recorded in the accused's own words.
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court noted that these procedural safeguards are mandatory because an accused who pleads guilty ordinarily loses the statutory right to appeal against the conviction. Therefore, strict compliance with the law is essential.
Quoting settled legal principles, the bench observed:
"Unless an accused makes an unqualified, unambiguous, clear and voluntary admission of accusations leveled against him, he cannot be convicted of the offences alleged."
The Court found that the petitioner's statement did not amount to an admission of guilt. While he acknowledged issuing the cheque and signing it, he consistently maintained that it had been given as security in connection with business transactions and disputed the existence of an unconditional, legally enforceable liability.
Justice Dhar further noted that the trial magistrate had failed to put all the essential ingredients of the alleged offence to the petitioner while recording his plea. In particular, the issue of service of the statutory demand notice an important requirement in a cheque dishonour prosecution—was never put to the accused. As a result, the alleged plea of guilt could not be treated as unconditional or complete.
The Court also rejected the argument that the petitioner's payment of ₹50,000 during the pendency of the complaint amounted to an admission of guilt. It held that a partial payment, by itself, could not justify conviction where the accused had consistently asserted that the business accounts between the parties remained unsettled.
Decision
Allowing the revision petition, the High Court held that the conviction recorded by the trial magistrate and affirmed by the appellate court could not be sustained in law. The Court also observed that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the trial court had treated the matter as one involving a plea of guilt.
Accordingly, Justice Sanjay Dhar set aside both the trial court's judgment and the appellate court's order. The matter was remanded to the Judicial Magistrate with a direction to proceed with the complaint afresh in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Adil Ahmad Sofi v. Javid Ahmad Sofi
Case Number: Crl R. No. 24/2024
Judge: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Decision Date: 17 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
