Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Johar and others VS Mangal Prasad and another...

Checking relevance for Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal VS State Of Bihar...

Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal VS State Of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 877 : The court held that remanding the case to the trial court to restart the trial from the stage of recording statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. would lead to a miscarriage of justice due to the passage of nineteen years since the trial concluded, and therefore it was neither possible nor feasible to order such remand. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. This establishes that a Session Judge cannot remand a criminal appeal on the ground of a defect in judgment when doing so would result in a miscarriage of justice, particularly after a significant lapse of time.Checking relevance for State Of W. B. VS Ansar Sheikh...

Checking relevance for Bablu Kumar VS State of Bihar...

Checking relevance for Satyajit Banerjee VS State Of W. B. ...

Checking relevance for Mahendra Pratap Singh VS Sarju Singh...

Checking relevance for Ajay Singh VS State of Chhattisgarh...

Checking relevance for Gulbaz Singh VS State of Punjab...

Gulbaz Singh VS State of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1130 : The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in remanding the case for retrial on the ground of defects in the judgment. It emphasized that retrial should only be ordered in exceptional circumstances where the trial was vitiated by serious illegalities or irregularities, or where the prosecutor or accused were prevented from tendering material evidence. The court found that the remand was not warranted as no exceptional circumstances were pointed out. Instead, the proper course for the appellate court, when additional evidence is required, is to resort to Section 391 Cr.P.C. to take additional evidence itself or remand it to the trial court for that limited purpose, rather than ordering a full retrial. The court set aside the remand order, directing the Sessions Court to hear and decide the appeal on merits, subject to taking additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. if required.Checking relevance for Sudhakar S/o Baburao Biradar VS State of Maharashtra...

Sudhakar S/o Baburao Biradar VS State of Maharashtra - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 715 : The court held that the Sessions Judge exceeded jurisdiction in remanding the case for retrial on the second occasion without finding a miscarriage of justice or failure of justice. The court emphasized that retrial under Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. can only be ordered in exceptional and rare cases where there is a clear miscarriage of justice, and not merely due to prosecution''''s negligence in securing witnesses. The court found no such finding of miscarriage of justice in the impugned order, and therefore quashed the remand order, affirming that a mere defect in judgment or failure to examine witnesses does not justify remand on the second occasion.Checking relevance for P. Venkata Rao VS State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor...

Checking relevance for Sunkam Shankaraiah VS State of A. P. ...

Checking relevance for Lekh Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh...

Lekh Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 55 : An appellate court, including a Sessions Judge, cannot remand a criminal appeal solely for reconsideration of sentence or on the ground of defect in judgment. Once an appeal is admitted, the appellate court must decide the appeal as a whole, including both conviction and sentence, and cannot confirm conviction while setting aside sentence and remanding for sentencing. This is because in criminal cases, the sentence follows automatically upon conviction, and the issue of sentence is not distinct or separable from the conviction. Remanding for consideration of sentence is not within the jurisdiction of a Sessions Court, as held in Pratul Chaudhary v. State, 1978 CLR 98.Checking relevance for Baljit Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh...

Baljit Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 16 : The appellate court (Sessions Judge) has no power to remit a criminal appeal to the trial court for consideration of sentence or probation, as it must decide the appeal as a whole. Once an appeal is admitted, the Sessions Court must confirm or set aside both the conviction and sentence simultaneously. It is not open to the Sessions Judge to confirm the conviction, set aside the sentence, and remand the matter for reconsideration of sentence. This principle applies to probation as well, as the appellate court has jurisdiction to grant probation directly under the law, and remitting the matter for probation consideration is illegal and not supported by law.

Can Session Court Compound an Offence with Imprisonment of Ten Years?

• Scope of Session Court's Power to Compound Offences Under Section 320(6) Cr.P.C., a High Court or Court of Session, while exercising revision powers under Section 401, may allow any person to compound an offence that they are competent to do so. This includes offences where the law explicitly permits compounding.A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. ["DR.RAJU MATHEW vs THE STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]

• Offences with Imprisonment Up to Ten Years Many offences with imprisonment terms of up to ten years are compoundable under the law, such as those under Sections 326A, 302, 460 IPC, and some under the Negotiable Instruments Act. For example, Section 326A prescribes imprisonment which may extend to ten years and is compoundable with court permission ["Amandeep Singh Saran vs State of Chhattisgarh - Supreme Court"]. Similarly, Section 460 IPC (housebreaking) with a maximum of ten years imprisonment is also compoundable, and courts have exercised discretion to permit compounding in such cases ["Abdul Aziz VS State of Rajasthan - Supreme Court"].

• Judicial Practice and Case Law Courts have generally permitted compounding of offences with imprisonment up to ten years when parties have settled disputes outside court, especially if ten years have elapsed since the incident and the accused has already undergone part of the sentence. For instance, in a case involving Section 302 IPC (murder), the High Court substituted life imprisonment with ten years rigorous imprisonment, indicating a scope for reducing or modifying sentences in line with the law and circumstances ["Amandeep Singh Saran VS State of Chhattisgarh - Supreme Court"].

• Limitations Certain offences, such as Section 436 IPC (arson), are not compoundable ["Guman Kutrya Pawara VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes"], and courts cannot permit compounding in such cases, regardless of the imprisonment term.

Analysis and Conclusion

• The power to compound offences with imprisonment of up to ten years is recognized under Section 320(6) Cr.P.C. and exercised by courts in appropriate cases, especially where parties have settled and the incident is old.
• Session Courts can entertain compounding applications for offences with imprisonment terms up to ten years, provided the offence is compoundable under law.
• Offences with imprisonment exceeding ten years or non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded, and courts are bound by the statutory restrictions.

In summary, Session Courts can compound offences with imprisonment of up to ten years when the offence is legally compoundable, and parties agree, subject to judicial discretion and case specifics ["DR.RAJU MATHEW vs THE STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"] ["Jayan @ Sanu VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - Kerala"].