LexHARSHAD GUPTA versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 701 : 2024 INSC 776 Harshad Gupta v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 4080 of 2024) 01 October 2024 [Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The Judge who had convicted the appellant was transferred post conviction, before the appellant could be heard on the quantum of sentence and a new Judge was posted in his place. Appellant relying on Sections 353 and 354, Cr.P.C sought direction from the High Court to the new Presiding Officer to re-hear the case, including on the question of conviction. High Court whether justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant and directing the new Presiding Officer to hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.235(1), (2) – Operation – Transfer of the Presiding Officer post conviction, the new Presiding Officer if obligated to hear the matter afresh including on the question of conviction: Held: No – Post the judgment of conviction, the accused has a right to be heard on the quantum of the sentence – Complying with s.235(1), the appellant was duly heard and a judgment of conviction was recorded and pronounced on 30.04.2015 whereafter, the appellant was entitled to be heard on the question of sentence – However, since the appellant himself sought adjournments and exemption from personal appearance on the ground of his accident, meanwhile the Presiding Officer was transferred, and the new Presiding Officer was required to hear the appellant on the quantum of the sentence for compliance with s.235(2) and pass an appropriate order of sentence – The process and procedure contemplated u/s.235(2) cannot annul the judgment of conviction recorded u/sub-section (1) thereof – Both clauses operate in their respective fields, though sub-section (2) is contingent upon the outcome under sub-section (1) of s.235 – The occasion to comply 702 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports with sub-section (2) of s.235 arises only when there is a judgment of conviction passed u/s.235(1) – Thus, once the judgment dated 30.04.2015 was pronounced, the conviction of the appellant stood finalized within the meaning of s.235(1), whereupon the Trial Court became functus officio for the purpose of sub-section (1) of s.235 – The only issue that survived thereafter was of the quantum of sentence for which, the procedure contemplated under sub- section (2) was to be complied with – No infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court holding that the new Presiding Officer would hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order. [Paras 14-16] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.353, 354 – Compliance with – Plea of the appellant that the judgment of conviction against him did not satisfy the ingredients of s.353 r/w s.354, Cr.P.C. and hence, there was no ‘judgment’ within the meaning of sub-section (1) of s.235: Held: Rejected – Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court satisfied s.354(1) – The said judgment was read out by the Presiding Officer in open court, in the presence of the appellant’s counsel and it was well understood by his pleader – Thus, the Presiding Officer followed the procedure envisaged under sub-section (1) of s.353 – The Presiding Officer then listed the case to accord a hearing to the appellant on the quantum of sentence – There is no violation of ss.353 or 354. [Para 18] List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Judgment of conviction; Transfer of the Presiding Officer post conviction, New Presiding Officer; Quantum of the sentence; Right to be heard on the quantum of the sentence; Order of sentence; ‘judgment’; Functus officio. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4080 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2019 of the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLMP No. 444 of 2015 [2024] 10 S.C.R. 703 Harshad Gupta v. The State of Chhattisgarh Appearances for Parties Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv., Prashant Kumar Umrao, Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. Arjun D Singh, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Leave granted. 2. The appellant’s grievance is against the Judgment dated 13.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, whereby his prayer to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.