Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Criticized High Court for Convicting Appellant Without Hearing Advocate

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on the High Court for convicting an appellant without allowing the appellant's advocate to present their case. The judgment, delivered on October 9, 2023, by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, highlights a glaring violation of principles of natural justice.

The appellant, Chandra Pratap Singh, had appealed against his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, during the proceedings in the High Court, the appellant's advocate was conspicuously absent. This oversight, as noted by the Supreme Court, amounted to a gross illegality. The court stated, "High Court has committed illegality by deciding the appeal against the conviction preferred by the appellant without hearing the appellant or his advocate."

The High Court had also altered the charge against the appellant, convicting him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, without providing the necessary notice to the appellant or their advocate. This alteration was found to have caused prejudice to the appellant, further emphasizing the violation of natural justice.

The judgment also underscored the requirement of notice to accused persons when altering or adding charges in appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court stated, "Unless the accused was put to notice by the Appellate Court that the charge is intended to be altered in a particular manner, his advocate cannot effectively argue the case."

While the appellant's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was set aside due to the absence of evidence supporting common intention among the accused, the conviction for causing the disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC) was upheld based on consistent eyewitness testimony.

This significant judgment serves as a reminder of the paramount importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring that accused individuals have the opportunity to be heard and represented adequately in court proceedings.

Date of Decision: October 9, 2023

Chandra Pratap Singh  vs State of M.P.               

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/09-Oct-2023-CHANDRA-PRATAP-SINGH-Vs-State.pdf"]

Latest Legal News