RETTI DEENABANDHU & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 11-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

599 
RETTI DEENABANDHU & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
January 11, 1977 
[H. R. KHANNA AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Appeal against conviction-Object of challenge to conviction-High Court 
should not decline to go into the validity of the conviction on the ground that 
the appellant is ~et at liberty, by set off under s. 428 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). · 
A 
B 
The appellants, upon conviction under the relevant sections of the Indian 
Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act, were sentenced to various 
terms of imprisonment. The total sentence of imprisonment to be undergone . C 
for some of the appellants was two years while in the case of other appellants 
it was one year. The High Court dismissed the appeal in view of the appel-
lants' entitlement to set off the period of their pre-trial detention against the 
entire sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them after observing that it 
was not necessary to go into the matter as it would be only of an academic 
interest. 
Accepting the appeal by Special Leave and remanding the cases 
to the 
High Court for disposing of on merits, the Court, 
D 
HELD : ( 1) The High Court was in error in so far as it declined to go 
into the validity of the conviction of the appellants. 
[600 Fl 
(2) The object of a challenge to conviction is to avoid certain conse-
quences flowing from conviction and also to erase the stigma resulting from 
the. conviction. The fact that the convicted person has already undergone the 
sentence or is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty because of the length of the 
period during which he has been under detention during the course of investi-
E 
gation, enquiry and trial cannot prevent the accused from challenging his con-
viction in appeal. 
[600 C-Fl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 
1977. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
28-2-75 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 462 of 1973. 
F 
S. C. Agarwala and A. P. Gupta for the Appellants. 
P. P. Rao, G. N. Rao and T. V. S. N. Chari for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of 
G 
the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the 
appellants .. 
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge 
Visakhapatnam for offences under sections 147, 148 and 352 Indian 
Penal Code. Some of the appellants were also convicted for offences 
under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 25 of the 
H 
Indian Arms Act. They were sentenced to various terms of imprison· 
ment and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The total 
sentence of imprisonment to be undergone by some of the appellants was 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
two years while in the case of the other appellants it was one year. The 
appellants went up in appeal to the High Court against the judgment of 
the trial court. The High Court· referred to the fact that the appellants 
had been in custody during the course of the investigation, inquiry and 
trial, for about two years. The appellants were held entitled under 
section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set off the 
period of detention against the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon 
B 
them. The High Court in veiw of the above dismissed the appeal after 
observing that it was unnecessary to go into the matter as it would be 
c 
D 
E 
F 
only of an academic interest. 
' 
We have heard Mr. Agarwala on behalf of the appellants and Mr. 
Rao on behalf of the State, and are of the opinion that the judgment of 
the High Court in so far-as it has refrained from going into the merits 
of the conviction of the appellants, cannot be sustained. The fact that 
a convicted person has already undergone the sentence or is otherwise 
entitled to be set at liberty because of the length of the period during 
which he has been under detention during the course of investigation, 
inquiry and trial cannot prevent the said person from challenging his 
conviction in appeal. 
Conviction for an offence entails certain conse-
;quences. 
Conviction also carries with it a stigma for the convicted 
person. A convicted person in challenging his convicticn in appeal not 
only seeks to avoid undergoing the punishment imposed upon him as 
a result of the conviction, he also wants that other evil consequences 
flowing from the conviction should not visit him an

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