Appeal Against Conviction Cannot Be Treated As Infructuous Merely Because Convict Served The Sentence – Supreme Court

An appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court assailing the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had dismissed the appeal of the Appellant as no one appeared for the Appellant and the Court had accepted the submission of the State Counsel that the appeal was rendered infructuous for the reason that the Appellant had served out the sentence.

In this case, the Appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Appellant contended before the Supreme Court that an appeal against conviction could not have been treated as infructuous merely for the reason that the convicted appellant had served out the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

It was further argued that the sentence awarded to the Appellant was only five months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and also he had undergone the sentence and deposited the amount of fine. However, he sought to assail his conviction.

The Apex Court observed, "Though learned counsel for the respondent has attempted to support the conviction and sentence of the appellant but could not dispute the position that merely for execution of the sentence, an appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous."

The Court further held that if nobody was present for the Appellant for any reason, the High Court could have taken appropriate steps for representation on behalf of the Appellant but in any case, the appeal could not be dismissed as infructuous.

In the light of these observations, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for its consideration on merits.

Click here to read/download the Order