Manipur High Court Sets Aside NDPS Conviction Based on One-and-a-Half Line Order, Holds Trial Court Failed Mandatory Satisfaction Test Under Section 229 CrPC

The High Court of Manipur set aside an NDPS conviction entered on a guilty plea, ruling the Special Court's one-and-a-half-line order failed the mandatory subjective-satisfaction requirement of Section 229 CrPC and ordering a fresh joint trial of both accused.

Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, sitting singly at the High Court of Manipur at Imphal, on 17 August 2026 set aside the conviction of Mrs. Leila @ Fajitun under Sections 21(b) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and directed a fresh trial. The Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur at Lamphelpat had convicted her on the same day it framed charges—11 March 2026—by a conviction order that ran to barely one and a half lines, without recording any subjective satisfaction that her guilty plea was genuine, informed, and unambiguous. The High Court held that the second limb of Section 229 of CrPC (now Section 252 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) was not satisfied, and ordered Leila to be tried afresh alongside co-accused Md. Sabir Khan @ Somi as if neither had pleaded guilty.

The Arrest, Charge, and Same-Day Conviction

Leila and Md. Sabir Khan are accused nos. 1 and 2 in FIR No. 10(01)2020 registered at Porompat Police Station, Imphal East, under Sections 21(b) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act. Leila was arrested on 13 January 2020 and released on bail on 17 January 2020.

On 11 March 2026, the Special Court framed charges against her under the same two provisions. At that hearing, Leila pleaded guilty while co-accused Md. Sabir Khan did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. On the very same day, the Special Judge convicted Leila under Sections 21(b) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act on her plea. The court fixed 16 March 2026 for hearing on sentence and 27 March 2026 for prosecution witnesses in respect of the co-accused. Leila was taken into custody immediately on 11 March 2026 and remained in custody throughout the proceedings.

Retraction Application and the Trial Court's Refusal

Five days after conviction, on 16 March 2026, Leila filed an application—Cril. Misc. Case No. 67 of 2026—under Section 229 of CrPC/Section 252 of BNSS, seeking to retract her guilty plea. In paragraphs 2 and 7 of that application, she stated that the plea was made under a wrong assumption about the facts and law, that she was unaware of the consequences, and that she had expected a lenient view and hoped to be released on the period already undergone. She later came to know she faced a maximum of ten years' imprisonment.

By order dated 23 March 2026, the Special Court dismissed the application. It held that a criminal court has no power to alter or review its own order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, and that Section 228(2) of CrPC did not confer jurisdiction on a Special Court to recall a recorded guilty plea or the conviction flowing from it. The Special Court also declined to follow the Gauhati High Court's decision in Samanungba v. State of Nagaland: 2024 Legal Eagle (GHC) (Gau) 156, concluding that that decision did not lay down a proposition that a Special Court itself could retract and recall such a plea.

The Two Legal Questions Before the High Court

Leila challenged the order of 23 March 2026 by way of Crl. Rev. P. No. 9 of 2026 under Section 36(B) of the NDPS Act read with Section 442 of BNSS/Section 401 of CrPC. This Court issued notice on 31 March 2026 and stayed further proceedings of the trial court. During the pendency of the revision, she also filed MC (Crl. Rev. P.) No. 22 of 2026 seeking to stay the conviction and be released on bail.

Justice Guneshwar Sharma identified two distinct points for determination: first, whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to recall the guilty plea and the conviction order; and second, whether the conviction order of 11 March 2026 satisfied the mandatory requirements of Section 229 of CrPC/Section 252 of BNSS.

Trial Courts Cannot Recall a Guilty Plea—But Higher Courts Can

On the first question, the High Court agreed with the Special Court. It held that a trial court, including the Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur, has no jurisdiction or power to recall the recording of a guilty plea made under Section 228(2) of CrPC/Section 251(2) of BNSS or to recall the conviction on such plea. The court in Samanungba, the High Court clarified, had exercised inherent and revisional power at the High Court level to set aside the conviction on the ground of lack of voluntariness and non-compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions. That decision did not create a power of recall in the trial court itself.

However, the High Court made clear that the right to retract from a guilty plea is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of a higher court. The first point was decided accordingly.

The Mandatory Satisfaction Under Section 229 CrPC

On the second question, the High Court turned to the statutory framework. Section 228(2) of CrPC requires the judge, after framing a charge, to read and explain the charge to the accused and ask whether the accused pleads guilty or claims to be tried. Section 229 of CrPC provides that if the accused pleads guilty, the judge shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict thereon.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh and Anr., (1992) 3 SCC 700, at paragraph 52, which holds that a guilty plea is only an admission of fact; before convicting, the court must be satisfied that the plea is clear, unambiguous, and made on full understanding of all implications. A conditional or ambiguous plea cannot ground a conviction.

The court also drew on the Gauhati High Court's decision in Nilima Bose v. State of Assam & Ors., 2022 Legal Eagle (GHC) 661, at paragraphs 42–44 and 63–64, which holds that in serious offences the court must exercise due care and caution to ensure the plea was voluntary and taken with full knowledge of the consequences, and must examine the attending and surrounding circumstances. Paragraphs 63 and 64 of Nilima Bose, reproduced in the judgment, emphasise that the absence of a properly framed charge on record, or of any indication that the magistrate made the accused understand the voluntary nature and full implications of the statement, are factors pointing to a post-haste conviction that cannot stand.

The High Court also referred to a Division Bench decision of this court in Krishna Bhandari v. State of Manipur, Crl. A. No. 23 of 2025, decided on 11 May 2026. In that case, the accused had asked to be tried at the very moment of the guilty plea, yet was convicted by a one-line order. The Division Bench set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and remanded for a fresh trial.

Why the Conviction Order of 11 March 2026 Could Not Stand

Justice Guneshwar Sharma found that the conviction order of 11 March 2026 was “one and half line” in length. While the first requirement of Section 229 CrPC—that the plea be recorded—was satisfied, the second limb was not. Section 229 does not make conviction automatic upon a guilty plea; it confers a discretion that must be exercised after the court reaches a subjective satisfaction that the plea was genuine, informed, and made with clear understanding of the offences and all consequent results.

The retraction application filed on 16 March 2026 — just five days after conviction — and the specific averments in paragraphs 2 and 7 of that application showed that Leila did not have a clear understanding of the plea's implications. She had believed the court would take a lenient view and release her on the period already undergone. Only after conviction did she learn she faced up to ten years' imprisonment. The court found this consistent with a plea made without complete understanding of the nature and consequence of the plea.

The brevity of the conviction order, viewed against Leila's immediate application for retraction, demonstrated that the trial judge did not exercise the discretion mandated by Section 229 of CrPC in the manner required by Sukhdev Singh. The second limb of the mandatory provision was accordingly not satisfied.

The High Court also noted the allegation that the conviction order of 11 March 2026 appeared to be a post-dated order: when counsel inspected the trial court file before filing the revision petition, no such order was found on the file. The order was subsequently brought on record through MC (Crl. Rev. P.) No. 15 of 2026, allowed on 13 July 2026.

Direction to Manipur Judicial Academy

Going beyond the disposal of the individual case, the High Court directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Director, Manipur Judicial Academy, with a request to impart awareness of the decision on Sections 228 and 229 of CrPC (now Sections 251 and 252 of BNSS) to all judicial officers. The direction reflects the court's concern that the procedural safeguards governing conviction on a guilty plea are being overlooked at the trial court level.

Order

Crl. Rev. P. No. 9 of 2026 was allowed. The conviction order dated 11 March 2026 passed by the Special Judge (ND&PS), Manipur in Special Trial Case No. 16 of 2025 was set aside in respect of accused no. 1, Mrs. Leila @ Fajitun. The matter was remanded to the Special Judge (ND&PS), Manipur for fresh proceedings as per law.

Both accused no. 1 (Leila) and accused no. 2 (Md. Sabir Khan @ Somi) are directed to be tried together for the offences charged, as if neither had pleaded guilty. Leila, who remained in custody since 11 March 2026 pursuant to the conviction, was directed to be immediately released from custody — if not required in any other case — on the same conditions as the bail order dated 17 January 2020 passed by the trial court. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Special Judge (ND&PS), Manipur and the Superintendent of Manipur Central Jail, Imphal, for compliance. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.