Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
RAM KRISHNA PRASAD - APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.463 OF 2021 (@ out of SLP (Crl.) No.3084/2021
Decided On : 04-05-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 389 - Appeal against convicted – Cheating and dishonesty - Appellant and three others were tried in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI in connection with R.C. Case No.05(A) of 1995 - One of the accused died during pendency of trial - Trial Court by its judgment and order convicted appellant and two others under Sections 120B, 420, 471 of Indian Penal Code and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentenced them to imprisonment for certain terms, maximum sentence being one year each for offence punishable under the POC Act and under Section 420 read with 120B of the IPC; with further direction that all sentences would run concurrently – Held, applications for relief under Section 389 Code of Criminal Procedure convicted accused were initially granted by the High Court - Since no one appeared on behalf of appellant, when the appeal was listed for hearing, the benefit was withdrawn and the appellant was directed to be taken in custody. Subsequent application preferred by appellant having been dismissed appeal has been filed - Appeal is allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 11-11-2020 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi rejecting IA No. 5759/2020 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.165 of 2014.
3. The appellant and three others were tried in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No.05(A) of 1995 (D). One of the accused died during pendency of the trial. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 26.02.2014 convicted the appellant and two others under Sections 120B, 420, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (“the IPC” for short) and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“The POC Act” for short) and sentenced them to imprisonment for certain terms, the maximum sentence being one year each for the offence punishable under the POC Act and under Section 420 read with 120B of the IPC; with further direction that all the sentences would run concurrently.
4. All the convicted accused preferred appeals in the High Court challenging their conviction and sentence. The applications for relief under Section 389 Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for short) preferred by the convicted accused were initially granted by the High Court. However, since no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, when the appeal was listed for hearing, the benefit was withdrawn and the appellant was directed to be taken in custody. Subsequent application preferred by the appellant having been dismissed, this appeal has been filed.
5. It is accepted that out of imprisonment of one year, the appellant has already completed nine months of actual imprisonment.
6. In the circumstances, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief under Section 389 of the Code.
7. We therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that the appellant be granted relief under Section 389 of the Code. In order to facilitate the exercise, the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall release the appellant on bail on such conditions as it deems appropriate.
8. The relief so granted by the Trial Court shall continue to be in operation till the pendency of Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.165 of 2014.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
