SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(HP) 1714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Kamal Dev - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. - Respondents
Cr.MMO No. 303 of 2018
Decided On : 18-06-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashwani Sharma & Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Assistant Advocate General, Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate

The right to appeal is a statutory and fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be subjected to any condition.

Headnote:

Section 389 Cr.P.C - Right to Appeal - Suspension of Sentence - Section 374(3) Cr.P.C - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Fundamental Right - Right of Appeal cannot be subjected to any condition

Fact of the Case:

The accused filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside an order requiring him to deposit the entire cheque amount as a condition for suspension of sentence imposed by the trial court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the right to appeal is a statutory right and a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and cannot be subjected to any condition. The court directed the appellate court to decide the appeal without insisting on the accused to deposit the remaining 50% of the cheque amount.

Issues: The issue revolved around the imposition of conditions for suspension of sentence and the right to appeal under Section 389 Cr.P.C and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right of appeal cannot be interfered with or impaired, nor can it be subjected to any condition. It emphasized that the purpose of making a party deposit the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court is to ensure the complainant's interest is protected, but this can be achieved by putting the convict to stringent conditions, especially when the convict is unable to deposit the amount at once.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the appellate court was directed to decide the appeal without insisting on the accused to deposit the remaining 50% of the cheque amount.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 16.5.2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.M.A. No.76 of 2018 in Cr. Appeal No.27 of 2018, whereby an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P., in complaint No.37-I/2015, on 1.5.2018/2.5.2018, came to be allowed subject to the petitioner's (hereinafter referred to as the accused) furnishing personal and surety bonds to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and also subject to depositing of the cheque amount before the learned trial Court within a period of 30 days with the undertaking to surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the sentence in the event of failure of his appeal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying therein to set-aside the order dated 16.5.2018 vide which the petitioner was called to deposit the entire cheque amount.

2. While issuing notice, this Court called upon the petitioner to deposit 50% of the cheque amount before the learned trial Court. It is not in dispute that pursuant to order, dated 18.7.2018,accused has already deposited 50% of the cheque amount with the learned trial Court.

3. Though, careful perusal of Section 374(3) Cr.P.C, nowhere suggests that at the time of filing appeal, appellant can be asked to deposit amount, if any, awarded by the learned trial Court, but certainly careful perusal of Section 389 Cr.P.C, which empowers the Appellate Court to suspend the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court during the pendency of the appeal, suggest that Court can ask the appellant to furnish bonds, so that his presence is secured during the pendency of the appeal and he makes himself available to serve the sentence awarded by the learned Appellate Court in the event of failure of appeal having been filed by him.

4. Leaving everything aside, right to appeal is a statutory right as it protects the liberty of the convict/ accused. It also provides further forum to agitate the issue of his liberty. The right to appeal is considered as a fundamental right under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip S. Dahanukar versus Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & others, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 528, has held as under:-

“12. An appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an offender who has been convicted is entitled to avail the right of appeal which is provided for under Section 374 of the Code. Right of Appeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of Article 21 is also a Fundamental Right. Right of Appeal, thus, can neither be interfered with or impaired, nor it can be subjected to any condition.

55.Unfortunately, the Legislature has not made any express provision in this behalf. In absence of any express provision, the question must be considered having regard to the overall object of a statute. We have noticed hereinbefore that Article 21 of the Constitution of India read with Section 374 of Crl.P.C. confers a right of appeal. Such a right is an absolute one. In a case where a judgment of conviction has been awarded, the Court can release a person on bail having regard to the nature of offence but as also the other relevant factors including its effect on society. A person upon arrest may have to remain in jail as an under trial prisoner. So would a person upon conviction. A person may also have to remain in jail, in the event he defaults in payment of fine, if he is so directed. But when a direction is issued for payment of compensation, having regard to Sub-Section (2) of Section 357 of the Code, the application thereof should ordinarily be directed to be stayed. It will, therefore, be for the Court to stay the operation of that part of the judgment whereby and whereunder

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top