PETITIONER:
RETTI DEENABANDHU & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/01/1977
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1335 1977 SCR (2) 599
1977 SCC (1) 742
ACT
Appeal against conviction--Object of challenge to con-
viction--High Court should not decline to go into the valid-
ity of the conviction on the ground that the appellant is
set at liberty, by set off under s. 428 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
HEADNOTE
The appellants, upon conviction under the relevant
sections of the Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act
and Arms Act, were sentenced to various terms of imprison-
ment. The total sentence of imprisonment to be undergone
for some of the appellants was two years while in the case
of other appellants it was one year. The High Court dis-
missed the appeal in view of the appellants’ entitlement to
set off the period of their pre-trial detention against the
entire sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them after
observing that it was not necessary to go into the matter
as it would be only of an academic interest.
Accepting the appeal by Special Leave and remanding the
cases to the High Court for disposing of on merits, the
Court,
HELD: (1 ) The High Court was in error in so far as it
declined to go into the validity of the conviction of the
appellants. [600 F]
(2) The object of a challenge to conviction is to avoid
certain consequences flowing from conviction and also to
erase the stigma resulting from the conviction. The fact
that the convicted person has already Undergone the sentence
or is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty because of the
length of the period during which he has been under deten-
tion during the course of investigation, enquiry and trial
cannot prevent the accused from challenging his conviction
in appeal. [600 C-F]
JUDGMENT
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 20
of 1977.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 28-2-75 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A.
No. 462 of 1973.
S.C. Agarwala and A.P. Gupta for the Appellants.
P.P. Rao, G.N. Rao and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondent.
’The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave is against the
judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the
appeal filed by the appellants.
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions
Judge Visakhapatnam for offences under sections 147, 148 and
352 Indian Penal Code. Some of the appellants were also
convicted for offences under section 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act and section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. They
were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and the
sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The total
sentence of imprisonment to be undergone by some of the
appellants was
600
two years while in the case of the other appellants it was
one year. The appellants went up in appeal to the High Court
against the judgment of the trial court. The High Court
referred to the fact that the appellants had been in custody
during the course of the investigation, inquiry and trial,
for about two years. The appellants were held entitled under
section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set
off the period of detention against the sentence of impris-
onment imposed upon them. The High Court in view of the
above dismissed the appeal after observing that it was
unnecessary to go into the matter as it would be only of an
academic interest.
We have heard Mr. Agarwala on behalf of the appellants
and Mr. Rao on behalf of the State, and are of the opinion
that the judgment of the High Court in so far as it has
refrained from going into the merits of the conviction of
the appellants, cannot be sustained; The fact that a con-
victed person has already undergone the sentence or is
otherwise entitled to be set at liberty because of the
length of the period during which he has been under deten-
tion during the course of investigation, inquiry and trial
cannot prevent the said person from challenging his convic-
tion in appeal. Conviction for an offence entails certain
consequences. Conviction also carries with it a stigma for
the convicted person. A convicted person in challenging his
conviction. in appeal not only seeks to avoid undergoing the
punishment imposed upon him as a result of the conviction,
he also wants that other evil consequences flowing from the
conviction should not visit him and that the stigma which
attaches to him because of the conviction should be’ wiped
out. In case the convicted person undergoes the sentence of
imprisonment imposed upon him or he is otherwise entitled to
be set at liberty by the time his appeal against conviction
comes up for hearing in view of the length of the period he
was in detention during the course of investigation, inquiry
or trial, such a person would still be entitled to challenge
his conviction. The fact that he is set at liberty and
would not have to undergo any further sentence of imprison-
ment would not debar him from questioning the validity of
his conviction. The object of such a challenge to convic-
tion is to avoid the other consequences flowing from convic-
tion and also to erase the stigma resulting from the convic-
tion.. The High Court, in our view, was in error in so far
as it declined to go into the validity of the conviction of
the appellants.
We, therefore, remand the case to the High Court for
disposing of the appeal of the appellants on merit.
S.R. Appeal allowed and case remanded.