The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Anil Kumar Ojha while allowing a revision plea filed against an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge under Section 101 of JJ Act dismissing an appeal filed by the accused/revisionist on the ground of not pressed observed that a Criminal Appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground of not being pressed.(Billu @ Anandi And Another v. State of U.P. and Another)
Facts of the case
The present Revision was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 3.11.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Rape Cases & POCSO Act) Sambhal at Chandausi under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act wrongly filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., whereby learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of not pressed by counsel for appellants and affirmed the conviction order dated 21.12.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, District Sambhal in a Case registered under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 376 I.P.C. for a period of three years each and under Section 506 I.P.C. convicted the appellants for two years each. Further directing both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the Revisionists raised only one point that order dated 3.11.2021 is illegal as the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of not being pressed by the counsel for the Revisionists.
The counsel referred to the case of State of Haryana v. Janak Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 431, wherein it was held that where Criminal Appeal preferred by the convict of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. was not pressed by the counsel for the appellant as regards the judgment of conviction and had pressed only on the point of sentence and the appellate court/High Court then reduced the sentence already undergone by the convict in jail. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even when the appeal was not pressed on merits and only pressed only on the point of sentence, the appellate court has to see under Section 376 I.P.C. whether the conviction was proper.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench taking note of the facts of the case and contention of the Parties remarked, "In view of the above law of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Janak Singh (Supra), order passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Rape Cases & POCSO Act) Sambhal at Chandausi dated 03.11.2021 dismissing the appeal on the ground of not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be set-aside and Revision deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.11.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Rape Cases & POCSO Act) Sambhal at Chandausi is set-aside."
The bench remitting the matter back to the Session Judge remarked, "Matter is remitted to Additional Sessions Judge (Rape Cases & POCSO Act) Sambhal at Chandausi to dispose of the matter in accordance with provisions of law after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties.
It is also directed that Additional Sessions Judge (Rape Cases & POCSO Act) Sambhal at Chandausi shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order as revisionist is already in jail and matter relates to Section 376 I.P.C."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
