JAGVIR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE(DELHI ADMN.)

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 946 · Decided: 05-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAGVIR SINGH AND ORS. 
' ,-·.. 
~ 
\I. 
;. 
STATE(DELHI ADMN.) 
JUNE 5, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Practice and Procedure: 
f 
c 
Concession with regard to conviction-Judgment of High Court 
mentioning that counsel for accused did not question conviction recorded by 
trial court but addressed the court on sentence only-However, sentence not 
found disproportionate-Plea that no instruction was g_iven by accused not 
to question the conviction before the High Court-Held: The only course 
qpen was to move the High Court-It is not open to contend before Supreme 
·rt 
D Court to the contrary-Interference in the matter declined-However, if any 
,. 
motion is made before High Court, the same would be considered in 
·"' 
accordance with law. 
.;;; 
\ 
Appellants were convicted by the trial court of offences punishable under 
Sections 342, 365 and 330 read with Section 34 IPC. While disposing of the 
E appeal filed by the accused-appellants, the High Court noted that counsel for 
the accused did not question the conviction and addressed the Court on 
quantum of sentence only. The High Court, however, did not held the sentence 
to be disproportionate, keeping in view the nature of the offence. 
F 
In the Instant appeal filed by the accused, it was contended that there 
appeared to be some confusion because there was never and instruction given 
by appellants not to question the conviction before the High Court. 
l-. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : If really there was no concession. The only course open to the 
G appellants was to move the High Court. That is the only way to have the record 
corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It 
is not open to the appellants to contend before this Court to the contrary. The 
Court declines to interfere in the matter. However, it is made clear that if any 
motion is made before the High Court as to the claim that no concession was 
H 
946 
JAGVIR SINGH v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) (PASA VAT. J.] 
94 7 
made, the same shall be considered in the proper perspective in accordance A 
_ with law. [Paras 4 and 5) [947-H; 948-A, C, DI 
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr., (1982) 2 
SCC 463 and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd and Ors., 
(2002) AIR SCW 4939, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2001 of the High Court of Delhi 
at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. l l of 1994. 
Ashok Bhan, Sunita Sharma for the Appellant. 
B.B. Singh, Kiran Bhardwaj and D.S. Mabra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order 
passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court upholding the 
conviction of appellants as done by learned Additional Sessions Judge in 
Sessions Case No.25/1984 for offence punishable under Sections 342, 365 and 
B 
c 
D 
330 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). 
Learned Single Judge observed that conviction was not questioned and what E 
was submitted related to quantum of sentence. The High Court noted that 
he required learned counsel appearing for the appellants to address the Court 
on question of conviction, which was denied. Only quantum of sentence 
aspect was highlighted. The High Court felt that in view of the concessions 
made relating to the conviction, the sentence cannot be held to be F 
disproportionate keeping in view the nature of the offence. 
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there appears to 
be some confusion because there was never any instruction given by the 
appellants not to question the conviction as recorded. In fact, according to 
them, the conviction was without any material and basis. 
G 
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted 
· that having conceded before the High Court that the conviction was in order, 
the present appeal is mis-conceived. 
4. If really there was no concession, the only course open to the H 
948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A appellants was to move the High Court in line with what has been said in 
State of Maharashtra V. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr .. [1982] 2 sec 463. 
In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. ltd and Ors., (2002) 
AIR SCW 4939 the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that 
statements of fact as to what transpired at th

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