Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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