SC rules, High Court can not enhance Sentence in an Ex Parte hearing of Revision

  

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that ex parte enhancement of sentence is against the statutory mandate of the law as per Section 401 CrPC that provides for an opportunity to show case before enhancement of sentence in criminal revision.

The Bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela Trivedi mentioned that the above principle held in Govind Ramji Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 1990 Latest Caselaw 80 SC mandates that the High Court should give the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause.

While hearing criminal appeal, wherein the Appeallents have challenged the Madras High Court order enchancing their sentences in a Criminal Revision Petition, the Court pointed out that there was no legal representation for the appellents and thus Amicus Curiae should have been appointed.

"It is noticed, however, that the appellants though served notice, no legal representation was made on their behalf. In such a situation, the High court ought to have appointed an Amicus Curiae in the absence of counsel as observed by this Court in Parveen v. State of Haryana."

 The Court also noted on the condoned excess delay in taking up the Revision Petition.

"It is to be noted that the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore District dated 4th December 2006 was challenged by the victim/revision petitioner in the aforementioned criminal revision filed in 2013. The delay was condoned on 13th December 2013. Thereupon, the revision petition remained pending and had come up for hearing after almost five years on 24th October 2018, when the impugned order was passed."

The Court concluded that only the Counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard and the High Court didn't have the benefit of the arguments on behalf of the Appellants.

Stating that the High Court was wrong in not appointing an Amicus Curiae, the Court remanded back the Revision Petition while clarifying that it has not expressed any opinion on merits.\

The Court also directed that separate notice wouldn't required be issued on next hearing and that Appeallents are to remain on bail as furnished with bonds. However, the High Court would be at liberty to call upon the Appellants to execute fresh bail bonds on the terms and conditions to be fixed by the Court,.

Read Order Here:

 

Social media is bold.


Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  


    We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure