BACHAN SINGH ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 645 · Decided: 14-09-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

4 
• 
BACHAN SINGH ETC.· 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
September 14, 1979 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.} 
645 
Crimi1U1l Procedure Code, 1973 (Act 1 of 1974), Sections 377, 401, Scope 
of-Hearing of an appeal against their conviction and sentence filed by the 
accused along ~·ith the State appeal against their conviction under section 302 
l.P.C. and a Revision Petition for enhancement of sentence-Their appeal 
itself, furnishes further opportunity to the accused to plead for their acquittal 
B 
or reduction of sentence or to show cause against the enhancement of sen-
C 
fence. 
Against their conviction and sentence passed by 
the 
Sessions 
Judge, 
Gurdaspur, the appellants preferred an appeal to the High Court. The State 
filed an appeal for their ronviction and sentence under section 302 
l.P.C. 
A revision petition was also filed under Section 401 Crl. P.C. for enhancement 
of the sentence of imprisonment tlnd fine "to meet the ends 
of 
justice". 
Though the High Court made an express order on December 9, 1974 that 
the revision petition would be heard along with the criminal appeal, tp.e High 
Court by its impugned judgment dated January .3, 1978, dismissed the appeal 
filed by the accused, but enhanced the sentence of Bachan Singh, Gurnam 
Singh and Chanan Singh accused under Section 304 Part I read with Sec-
tion 149 I,P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for life and of accused Ravail Sipgh 
and Vir Singh under the same section to rigorous impriSonment for 10 years. 
While making that order, the High Court observed that the State appeal 
"for enhancement of punishment" was partly accepted, without reference to 
the revision petition. 
Hence the petition for special leave under Article 136 
of the Constitution on the ground that the High Court committed an error of 
Jaw in enhaJJcing the sentence of the accused without giving them a reason-
. able opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and without 
allowing them to plead for their acquittal or for reduction of the sentence 
as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 377 of• the Code of Criminal 
Procedure. 
Dismissing the petition the Court, 
HEID: 
t. Tho revision petition under section 401 Crl. P.C. for enhancement of 
D 
E 
F 
the /sentence was maintainable as it was not permissible for the 
revision 
G 
petition~r .to file an appeal under section 377. The High Court effectively 
disposed of both the appeals and the revision petition even though there was an 
inadvertent mistake in not making a reference to the revision petition in the 
judgment. [647 F-G, 648 BJ 
2. The opportunity for pleading for acquittal was amply furnished to the 
accused at the hearing of their own appeal against their conviction, and the 
· same appeal furnished them the necessary opportunity for 
pleading 
for 
tbelr 11cquittal or the reduction of the sentence. That, in fact, 
was 
the 
subject matter Qf their appeal. The fact that the appeal filed by the State 
5-625SCI/79 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1910] 1 s.c.R. 
I 
against the acquittal of the accused under $CCtion 302 I.P.C. vrao lio&rd alang 
with their appeal against conviction and sentence, itself furnished an oppor-
tunity to show cause against the enhancement of the sentence. ['48 C-D] 
3. (a) In the petition filed .under section 401 Cr!. P.C. for the cxcn:iso· 
of the High Court's power of revision, it was permissible for it to exeroi!e 
the power of a Court of appeal under settion 386 for enhancemeat of . the 
sentence. [648 E-F) 
(b) It was also permissible for the High Court 
under 
Section 397 
Cr!. P.C., to call for and examine the record of the proceedinl!S before the 
trial court for purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or 
"propriety" of any finding, "sen.ten~" or order reoorded or passed 
by that 
inferior Court. The High Court's power of revision under section 401 Crl. P .C. 
in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been ealled for by 
it or which otherwise comes to its knowledge includes the power conferred 
on a court of appeal under section 386 to enhance or reduce the sentence. 
So when the record of the case was before the High Court in connection 
with the two appeals and the revision petition there was nothing to preVcnt 
the High Court from invoking its power under section 397 read with 401 
Cr!. P.C. and to make an order for the enhancement of the sentence. 
[648 F-H] 
aUMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Special Leave P

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.