CHANDRAKANT PATIL versus STATE THROUGH CBI

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 02-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CHANDRAKANT PATIL 
v. 
STATE THROUGH CBI 
FEBRUARY 2, 1998 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 377 (3). 
Sentence-Appeal against-By Government-Acquittal-Right of 
accused to plead/or-Supreme Court already confirmed conviction of accused 
under S.5 TADA after considering in detail contentions raised by accused 
and also dismissed review petition-Held :, Right to plead for acquittal 
confined only to appeals presented by Government to High Court-Hence, 
A 
B 
c 
no further opportunity can be afforded to the accused in appeal before D 
/·· 
Supreme Court under S.19 of TADA to plead for acquittal by reviewing the 
findings already made. 
Terrorist and Disruptive Acti".ities (Prevention) Act, 1987 : 
Section 19--Sentence-Enhancement of-By Supreme Court in appeal-
E 
No appeal presented by Government specifically for enhancement-No revision 
powers available to Supreme Court as are conferred on High Court and 
Court of Sessions-Held : Even under these circumstances Supreme Court 
has power under Art. I 42 r/w S.19 to enhance the sentence for doing complete 
justice in the matter when in the circumslances of the case ii app~ars to be 
too inadequate. 
F 
Sec/ion 5--Sentence-Adequacy of-Accused caught red handed while 
making nocturnal movements towards some targeted destination in densely 
crowded city with highly lethal and quickly explosive articles-Minimum 
sentence of 5 years 'RI imposed on accused-Held : Such minimum sentence 
inadequate-Maximum sentence of file imprisonment also on higher side G 
which should be reserved for gravest instances of offences-In the 
circumstances of the case, 10 years' RI is adequate. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 142--Supreme Court's power-Scope-Held : Not limited or H 
447 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1998) l S.C.R. 
A restricted by any statutory enactment-However, it should be exercised 
B 
sparingly. 
~
Article 136-Plenary power of Supreme Court-Scope of-Held : Not 
restricted by appellale provisions enumerated under Cr.P.C. or any other 
statute. 
Sentencing : 
Maximum sentence-Held : should be reserved for gravest instances of 
offences likely to occur as a principle of common sense. 
C 
The appellants-accused were caught red handed while making nocturnal 
movements towards some targeted destination in the densely crowded city 
with highly l~thal and quickly explosive articles. The appellants-accused 
were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five 
years under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) 
D Act, 1987. 
This Court confirmed the finding regarding the conviction under Section 
5 of TADA after considering in detail the contentions raised by the accused 
and also dismissed the review petition. While confirming the conviction this 
Court felt that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years awarded 
E by the trial court to each of the accused was inadequate. Hence this Court 
issued notice to the appellants-accused on the proposal to e~hance the 
sentence. 
On behalf of the accused it was contended that the accused had a right 
to plead for his acquittal as envisaged under Section 377(3) of the Criminal 
p 
Procedure Code, 1973; that this Court had no power to enhance the sentence 
in the absence of an appeal by the Government presented specifically for that 
)... 
purpose more so because this Court had no revisional power_s which the High 
( 
Court and the Court of Sessions were conferred with by the Code; and that 
the power under Article I 42 of the Constitution should be sparingly used 
and that too in exceptional cases. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The right envisaged in S~ction 377(3) of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, 1973 shall be confined to appeals presented by Government 
to the High Court against sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. There 
H is no scope to afford a further opportunity in the appeal, at this stage, since 
' • 
~-
' 
C. PATIL v. STATE 
449 
the finding of the trial court has already been considered elaborately by re- A 
evaluating the entire evidence in the light of the elaborate arguments canvassed 
on behalfof the parties. A repetition of the whole process over again is, apart 
from waste of time of this Court, unnecessary and unwarranted by law. 
1452-E-F] 
2.1. Powers of the Supreme Court in appeals filed under Article 136 B 
of the Constitution are not restricted by the appellate provisions enume

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