Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Sentencing completes a criminal trial- Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, a criminal trial does not end when the accused is found guilty; rather, it ends when they are sentenced.

Only after the sentence is imposed on the convict, if the offender is not given the benefit of Section 360 of the CrPC, are the five judges' decisions in a criminal prosecution considered to be final in all respects. Constitution Bench made a comment in a decision addressing a reference to the authority granted by Section 319 CrPC.

When the trial can be considered to have ended was one of the problems that came up in this case. When the verdict is announced and the conviction is granted, or when the punishment is given and the trial is fully concluded, is it at this point?

In response, the court cited Sections 232 and 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code and made the following observation: If the Sessions Court determines after reviewing the evidence that there is insufficient evidence to hold the accused responsible for the offence, the judge must enter an order of acquittal. The trial ends at that point since the learned Judge has no further action to take in that situation.

If the learned Judge decides that the accused should be found guilty, the conviction will be imposed by the judgement as provided for in Section 235 of the CrPC. If the learned Judge does not proceed to grant the accused the benefit of being released on probation under Section 360 of the CrPC, it is stated in Subsection (2) thereto that the learned Judge shall hear the accused on the issue of punishment and then impose a sentence on him in accordance with law.

The court noted that even though the accused was found guilty, the trial was not yet over because the learned Sessions Judge still needed to consider all of the available evidence to assess the seriousness of the charge against the accused, the role of each individual accused when there were multiple accused parties involved in the crime, and to determine the appropriate sentence.

Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News