Kundan Singh vs Unknown
2025 Latest Caselaw 704 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Kundan Singh vs Unknown on 3 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  CRLR No.410 of 2025
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the revisionist.

2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.

3. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 26.06.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2024, Kundan Singh Vs. State and another, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, whereby the criminal appeal preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 01.10.2024, passed in Criminal Case No.1147 of 2018, State Vs. Kundan Singh, under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, in which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, has been dismissed and judgment and order of the trial court has been affirmed.

4. It is contended by counsel for the revisionist that both the courts have failed to consider the legal impact of the evidence available on record and passed incorrect and wrong orders convicting the revisionist.

5. In order to buttress his argument, it is further submitted by him that at the time of recovery bones and skin (hide) of the leopard were recovered, but as per the F.S.L. Report the skull and skin (hide) of the leopard was sent for forensic examination. F.S.L. Report is about skull and skin (hide) of the Leopard. Thus he submits that the entire case of the prosecution has crumbled down.

6. Admit.

7. Sent for T.C.R.

Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025)

8. It is contended by counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was given one week's time to appear before the trial court by the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat while affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by trial court as stated in para no.46 of the impugned judgment and order dated 26.06.2025.

9. This Court is of the opinion that learned Sessions Judge, Champawat has exceeded his power while granting time for the revisionist to surrender before the trial court. Once the judgment and order by which a person is convicted and sentenced has been affirmed, the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat ceased with the power to pass such an order which is clearly indicated from perusal of the language of Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C. The appellant ought to surrender immediately to serve the sentence imposed.

10. Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C. is quoted hereunder:-

"389(3). Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the Court shall,-

(i) Where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or

(ii) Where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail."

11. From perusal of Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C. it is clear that this power is given to the court, which convicts a person, but here in the case in hand the revisionist was not convicted by the appellate court rather he has been convicted by the trial court, therefore, this is something which is illegal and in excess to the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat.

12. Accordingly a strong objection and disappointment is recorded by this Court, the way the case has been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat while giving the revisionist time to surrender before the trial court.

13. So far as the bail application of the of the applicant is concerned, in view of the fact and the argument advanced by counsel for the revisionist, this Court is of the view that the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

14. Accordingly Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025) is allowed.

15. Let the applicant - Kundan Singh be released on bail, during pendency of the present criminal revision, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

16. Realization of fine, as imposed by the trial court, shall also remain stayed, during pendency of the present criminal revision.