Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.C. Barpatragohain, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. We have also heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the informant in both the appeals.

2. Short point for consideration is whether Section 437A Cr.P.C. can be invoked in a case of conviction or whether it can be invoked only in a case of acquittal?

3. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 41/2015 convicting the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Sections 147/148/149 thereof and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine with a default clause for the conviction under Section 302 IPC and other minor sentences for conviction under the other Sections.

4. While sentencing the accused-appellants as above, learned court below passed the following order:-

"The court feels the sentences are appropriate in the present case and it would serve the purpose of law. However, they are acquitted from the charges under sections 323/324 IPC on the ground of benefit of doubt. The bail bond of the accused persons are however extended for a period of 6(six) months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.."

5. Thus, it is seen that learned court below while sentencing the appellants had extended the bail bonds for a period of 6 months in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C..

6. While admitting the two appeals, an issue of considerable importance surfaced, namely, the scope and ambit of Section 437A Cr.P.C., i.e., whether this provision can be invoked in a case of conviction like in the present two appeals or whether this provision can be invoked only in case of acquittal.

7. Therefore, we were of the view that irrespective of the outcome of the hearing of the two appeals on merit, a detailed hearing on the scope and object of Section 437A Cr.P.C. was required. In that view of the matter, we had issued notice to the learned Advocate General, Assam who thereafter made his submissions; so also Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the appellants.

8. It may be mentioned that Criminal Appeal No. 359/2017 was admitted for hearing vide order dated 08.09.2017 by which order the appellant was allowed to remain on bail. Likewise, Criminal Appeal No. 362/2017 was admitted for hearing vide order dated 26.10.2017 by which order appellants of this appeal were allowed to remain on bail. On 06.02.2018 it was made clear that bail orders passed in both the appeals shall continue till disposal of the appeals.

9. Mr. Barpatragohain, in the course of his detailed submissions, had placed before the Court the 154th and 268th Reports of the Law Commission of India as well as judgments of different High Courts of the country to contend that the real import of Section 437A Cr.P.C. is to ensure that in a case of acquittal, the person acquitted responds to the notice issued by the appellate court when his acquittal is put to challenge. He submits that this provision cannot be invoked in case of conviction.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the appellants has referred to the various provisions in the Cr.P.C. and contends that view taken by the learned Advocate General would be too constrictive and would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A person who has been acquitted of a criminal charge cannot be tied down by executing bail bonds for an uncertain future eventuality i.e., filing of appeal against acquittal. Therefore, learned trial Judge was correct in applying this provision while convicting the appellants.

11. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

12. Section 437A Cr.P.C., as it stands today, reads as under:-

"437A. Bail to require accused to appear before next appellate court

(1) Before conclusion of the trial and before di