Procedure U/s. 235(2) CrPC Cannot Annul Judgment Of Conviction: SC Dismisses Plea For Fresh Hearing Due To Transfer Of Presiding Officer

The Court upheld the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court which dismissed the petition filed by the accused seeking a direction to the new Presiding Officer to re-hear his case, including on the question of conviction relying upon Sections 353 and 354 of the Cr.P.C. “The contention of the appellant, that with the transfer of the Presiding Officer post his conviction, the new Presiding Officer was obligated to hear him afresh even on the question of conviction, is wholly misconceived and misdirected,” the Bench observed.

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “The process and procedure contemplated under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. cannot annul the judgment of conviction recorded under sub-section (1) thereof. Both clauses operate in their respective fields, though sub-section (2) is contingent upon the outcome under sub-section (1) of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. The occasion to comply with subsection (2) of Section 235, thus, arises only when there is a judgment of conviction passed under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.”

Senior Advocate Rajesh Pandey represented the appellant, while Advocate Arjun D Singh appeared for the respondent.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. Before he could be heard on the quantum of the sentence, the accused moved an application under Section 317 of the Code of Cr.P.C. to exempt him from personal appearance.

However, meanwhile, the Presiding Officer of the Court, who had convicted the accused, was transferred and a new Presiding Officer was posted in his place.

The accused approached the High Court contending that the new Presiding Officer was obligated not only to hear him on the question of sentence but also on the point of conviction in terms of Sections 353 and 354 of the Cr.P.C. The Court dismissed the petition vide the impugned order holding that “there was no illegality in the successor-in-office of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to hear and determine the quantum of the sentence, even in a case where the judgment of conviction was pronounced by his predecessor-in-office.”

The Supreme Court stated that Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. mandated that once the judgment of conviction was delivered, the accused had a right to be heard on the quantum of the sentence. “This is so, in view of the well-established principle of law that various relevant factors, including mitigating circumstances, if any, are to be kept in mind by the Court while awarding an adequate and proportionate sentence,” it stated.

“Consequential thereto, the appellant was entitled to be heard on the question of sentence. Since the appellant himself had been seeking adjournments and exemption from personal appearance due to the injuries suffered by him in a road accident and meanwhile the Presiding Officer had been transferred, it was but natural that the new Presiding Officer was required to hear the appellant on the quantum of the sentence, for faithful compliance with Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. and then, to pass an appropriate order of sentence,” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court held, “We are, thus, of the view that there is not even a fragment of violation of Sections 353 or 354 of the Cr.P.C., as claimed on behalf of the appellant.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Harshad Gupta v. The State Of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 776)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Rajesh Pandey; AOR Prashant Kumar Umrao; Advocate Nishi Prabha Singh

Respondent: AOR Ankita Sharma; Advocate Arjun D Singh

Click here to read/download the Order