LexSAHAB SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SAHAB SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
FEBRUARY 20, 1990
[B.C. RAY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: Sections 374, 377, 386, 397
and 40 I-Appeal by convicts against conviction and sentence passed by
trial court-High Court dismissing appeal, but enhancing sentence of
fine without giving notice and opportunity of being heard to convicts-
Whether within jurisdiction of High Court.
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge
on three counts and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.200 under Sections 148, 323/149 and 302/149 l.P.C. The
appellants preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and sen-
tence. Dismissing the appeal, the High Court, clarified that their con-
victions were on six counts and altered the tine awarded under Section
302/149 I.P.C. from Rs.200 to Rs.5,000 in respect of each appellant per
count, i.e. Rs.30,000 per appellant. Hence the appellants preferred
appeal, by special leave, in this Court, limited to the question of
enhancement of fine only.
Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the order of High Court
enhancing the fine, this Court,
HELD: It is clear from a conjoint reading of Sections 377, 386,
397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that if the State
Government is aggrieved about the inadequacy of the sentence, it can
prefer an appeal under Section 377(1) of the Code. The failure on the
part of the State Government to prefer an appeal does not, however,
preclude the High Court from exercising suo motu power of revision
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code, since the High
Court itself is empowered to call for the record of the proceeding of any
conrt subordinate to it. But before the High Court can exercise its
revisional jurisdiction to enhance the sentence, it is imperative that the
convict is put on notice and given an opportunity of being heard on the
question of sentence either in person or through his advocate. The
revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to the prejudice of the con-
vict without putting him on guard that it is proposed to enhance the
sentence imposed by the Trial Court. IS ISA-DJ
512
~I
SAHAB SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA {AHMADI, J.J
513
In the present case, the appeal was filed under Section 374(2) of the
Code by the convicts against the order passed by the Additional Ses-
sions Judge. No appeal was filed by the State under Section 377(1) of the
Code against the sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence
under Section 302/149, I.P.C. on the ground of its inadequacy. Nor did
the High Court exercise suo motu revisional powers under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code. If the High Court was minded to
enhance the sentence the proper course was to exercise suo motu powers
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code by issuing notice of
enhancement and hearing the convicts on the question of inadequacy of
sentence. Without following such procedure it was not open to the High
Court in the appeal filed by the convicts to enhance the sentence by
enhancing the fine. The High Court clearly actfd withoutjumdiction. l51SD-FJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 104 of 1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.1983 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Cr!. A. No. 199-DB/83.
B.S. Malik for the Appellants.
Mahabir Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AHMADI, J. Special leave granted.
The seven appellants before us were convicted by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat on three counts and sentenced as
under:
(a) rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148,
I.P.C.;
(b) rigorous imprisonment for six. months under Section 323/
149, I.P.C.; and
(c) imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.200 under Section
302/149, 1.P.C.
All the said substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 1 S.C.R.
The seven appellants preferred an appeal against the order of . '"(.
A conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge. The High
Court while dismissing their appeal clarified that their convictions
were on six counts and altered the fine awarded under Section 302/149,
1.P.C. from Rs.200 to Rs.5,000 in respect of each appellant per count,
i.e. Rs.30,000 per apellant. Being aggrieved by this enhancement of
B fine the appellants have preferred this appeal limited tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.