High CourtDivision Bench2007-06-05Appeal dismissed.

Jagvir Singh and Ors. v State (Delhi Admn.)

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2002

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
D.K. Jain
Judgment Date: 2007-06-05
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. Supreme Court declines to interfere and leaves the High Court record undisturbed regarding the conviction; it clarifies that if any motion is made before the High Court disputing that no concession was made, the matter shall be considered in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jagvir Singh and Ors.

Respondents

State (Delhi Adm.)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ashok Bhan
• Sunita Sharma

Counsels for Respondents

• B.B. Singh
• Kiran Bhardwaj
• D.S. Mabra

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jagvir Singh and Ors. v State (Delhi Admn.) involves an appeal from a Delhi High Court order that affirmed convictions of the appellants under sections 342, 365 and 330 read with section 34 IPC, while leaving the sentence undisturbed as not disproportionate. The High Court, while noting that the accused's counsel did not challenge the conviction and only addressed the court on quantum of sentence, did not hold the sentence disproportionate in view of the nature of the offence. The appellants contend that there was no instruction from them not to challenge the conviction before the High Court, pointing to a mis-recording in the High Court's proceedings where counsel for the accused is said to have addressed on quantum of sentence. They argue the conviction was without material basis. The State maintains that the appellants conceded the conviction before the High Court, rendering the present appeal misconceived. The Supreme Court, in examining whether there was a concession and the proper remedy for rectifying any record, reiterates established precedents: if there was no concession, the avenue would be to move the High Court to correct the record; statements of fact as recorded in a judgment are conclusive and cannot be contradicted by affidavit; and if any motion is made in the High Court, it shall be considered in accordance with law. The Court ultimately declines to interfere, dismissing the appeal, while clarifying that any future motion challenging concession will be considered properly by the High Court.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 342 IPCSection 365 IPCSection 330 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Statements of fact as recorded in a judgment are conclusive of the facts stated and cannot be contradicted by affidavit or other evidence (Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2002 AIR SCW 4939).
If there is no concession, the remedy is to move the High Court to correct the record (State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr., 1982 (2) SCC 463).
Remedy to correct court record lies in approaching the judge who recorded it while the matter is fresh; if not done, the matter ends there (State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that there was never any instruction from them not to challenge the conviction as recorded; they claimed the conviction was without any material and basis. They contended that the High Court’s note that the counsel for the accused did not challenge the conviction but only addressed on quantum of sentence was erroneous, implying a concession that did not exist. They urged that if there was no concession, the proper course would be to move the High Court to correct the record and not permit this Court to entertain a challenge to the conviction through an appeal. They pressed for correction of the record of proceedings before the High Court and argued that theHigh Court’s conduct and the record should reflect the true position. They sought relief by way of reconsideration in the appropriate forum, i.e., the High Court, rather than this Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submitted that the appellants conceded before the High Court that the conviction was in order; hence the appeal before the Supreme Court is misconceived. They relied on State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr. and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. to argue that court-recorded facts are conclusive and corrections must be sought in the High Court; once a concession is made, a later challenge to the conviction should not be entertained unless there is a valid ground for review or correction. They maintained that the sentence was not disproportionate given the nature of the offences and that the High Court’s approach was consistent with the record. They emphasized the remedy lies in timely correction in the appropriate forum, not in reinvoking the appellate process in this Court."},

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr.	(1982) 2 SCC 463	Positive	Cited to support the principle that where there is claimed non-concession, the proper remedy is a High Court motion for correction; recognizes that records of proceedings are conclusive.
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd and Ors.	(2002) AIR SCW 4939	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that statements of fact in judgments are conclusive and cannot be contradicted by affidavits; used to justify the High Court’s corrective approach and the limitation on challenging recorded facts in the Supreme Court.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jagvir Singh and Ors. v State (Delhi Admn.) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

' ,-·.. ~ ;. A # JAGVIR SINGH AND ORS. \I. STATE(DELHI ADMN.) ## JUNE 5, 2007 ## B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] ## _Practice and Procedure:_ f ·rt ,. ·"' _Concession with regard to conviction-Judgment of High Court_ c _mentioning that counsel for accused did not question conviction recorded by trial court but addressed the court on sentence only-However, sentence not found disproportionate-Plea that no instruction was g_iven by accused not to question the conviction before the High Court-Held: The only course qpen was to move the High Court-It is not open to contend before Supreme_ D _[Court ][to ][the contrary-Interference ][in ][the matter declined-However, ][if ][any ] motion is made before High Court, the same would be considered in accordance with law._ .;;; \ Appellants were convicted by the trial court of offences punishable under Sections 342, 365 and 330 read with Section 34 IPC. While disposing of the E[appeal filed by the accused-appellants, the High ][Court ][noted that counsel for ] the accused did not question the conviction and addressed the Court on quantum of sentence only. The High Court, however, did not held the sentence to be disproportionate, keeping in view the nature of the offence. In the Instant appeal filed by the accused, it was contended that there F appeared to be some confusion because there was never and instruction given by appellants not to question the conviction before the High Court. l-. ## Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : If really there was no concession. The only course open to the G appellants was to move the High Court. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellants to contend before this Court to the contrary. The Court declines to interfere in the matter. However, it is made clear that if any motion is made before the High Court as to the claim that no concession was H 946 94 7 JAGVIR SINGH v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) (PASA VAT. J.] made, the same shall be considered in the proper perspective in accordance A _ with law. [Paras 4 and 5) [947-H; 948-A, C, DI _State of Maharashtra_ v. _Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr.,_ (1982) 2 SCC 463 and _Bhavnagar University_ v. _Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd and Ors.,_ (2002) AIR SCW 4939, relied on. B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2001 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. l l of 1994. c Ashok Bhan, Sunita Sharma for the Appellant. B.B. Singh, Kiran Bhardwaj and D.S. Mabra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court upholding the conviction of appellants as done by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.25/1984 for offence punishable under Sections 342, 365 and 330 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Learned Single Judge observed that conviction was not questioned and what E was submitted related to quantum of sentence. The High Court noted that he required learned counsel appearing for the appellants to address the Court on question of conviction, which was denied. Only quantum of sentence aspect was highlighted. The High Court felt that in view of the concessions made relating to the conviction, the sentence cannot be held to be F disproportionate keeping in view the nature of the offence. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there appears to be some confusion because there was never any instruction given by the appellants not to question the conviction as recorded. In fact, according to them, the conviction was without any material and basis. G 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted · that having conceded before the High Court that the conviction was in order, the present appeal is mis-conceived. 4. If really there was no concession, the only course open to the H 948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R. '· A appellants was to move the High Court in line with what has been said in _State of Maharashtra_ V. _Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr .._ [1982] 2 sec 463. In _Bhavnagar University_ v. _Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. ltd and Ors.,_ (2002) AIR SCW 4939 the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can B contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judge who has made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the C matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellants to contend before this Court to the contrary. 5. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the matter. However, we make it clear that if any motion is made before the High Court as to the claim that no concession was made, the same shall be considered in the proper D perspective in accordance with law. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. RP. Appeal dismissed.