Court Rules Trial Court Cannot Recall Plea of Guilty; Emphasizes Mandatory Safeguards Under CrPC and BNSS for Conviction on Guilty Plea
Imphal, August 17, 2026 — In a significant judgment delivered today, the Manipur High Court quashed the conviction of Mrs. Leila @ Fajitun, who had earlier been convicted on a plea of guilty under Sections 21(b) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985. The Court ruled that the trial court erred in convicting the accused without ensuring that the plea of guilty was voluntary, genuine, and made with a clear understanding of its consequences, as mandated by Section 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now reflected in Section 252 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The petitioner, Mrs. Leila, was arrested in January 2020 and subsequently charged by the Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur. On March 11, 2026, she pleaded guilty to the charges and was convicted on the same day. However, shortly after the conviction, Mrs. Leila filed an application seeking to retract her plea, claiming she had pleaded guilty under a mistaken belief and without full knowledge of the legal consequences. The trial court dismissed her application, holding that it had no jurisdiction to recall the plea of guilty or review its conviction order.
Challenging this dismissal, Mrs. Leila approached the Manipur High Court, which issued a stay on further trial court proceedings and took up the matter for detailed consideration. The Court examined the scope of the trial court’s power to recall a plea of guilty and the mandatory procedural safeguards required before convicting an accused on such a plea.
The Court reiterated established legal principles, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh (1992) 3 SCC 700, which emphasized that a plea of guilty constitutes only an admission of fact and that the court must be satisfied about the voluntariness and genuineness of the plea before recording a conviction. The Court also relied on the Gauhati High Court’s decision in Nilima Bose v. State of Assam (2022), which stresses the importance of ensuring full understanding and voluntariness in guilty pleas, especially in serious offences.
In its judgment, the Manipur High Court clarified that a trial court, including a Special Court (ND&PS), does not possess the jurisdiction to recall or review its own order recording a plea of guilty and the consequent conviction. However, it acknowledged that higher courts have revisional jurisdiction to set aside such convictions if procedural safeguards are not met.
Upon examining the facts, the High Court found that the petitioner had not fully understood the implications of her plea at the time it was recorded. The conviction order by the trial court was a brief one-line order, failing to reflect the mandatory satisfaction of the court regarding the genuineness and voluntary nature of the plea. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for a fresh trial, treating the accused as if she had not pleaded guilty.
The Court directed that both accused persons, Mrs. Leila and Md. Sabir Khan, be tried together on the charges framed. Furthermore, since the petitioner was in custody post-conviction, the Court ordered her immediate release on bail, subject to the conditions of her earlier bail order.
In addition to disposing of the revision petition, the Court directed the Special Judge (ND&PS), Manipur, and the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail to comply with the order. It also called upon the Director of the Manipur Judicial Academy to impart awareness about the correct application of Sections 228 and 229 of the CrPC (now Sections 251 and 252 of BNSS) to all judicial officers to prevent recurrence of such procedural lapses.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the rights of accused persons by ensuring that pleas of guilty are made with full knowledge and genuine consent, preventing miscarriages of justice arising from procedural shortcomings.
Bottom Line:
Conviction based on plea of guilty must satisfy the mandatory provisions of Section 229 of CrPC (now Section 252 of BNSS), ensuring the plea is voluntary, genuine, and made with full understanding of its implications. A trial court cannot recall or review its own order of conviction based on such plea; however, higher courts may exercise revisional jurisdiction to set aside such convictions.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 21(b), 22(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 228, 229 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC); Sections 251, 252 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); Section 36(B) of NDPS Act; Section 442 of BNSS; Section 401 of CrPC; Section 528 of BNSS.
Leila @ Fajitun v. State of Manipur, (Manipur) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2962888
