Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High 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