RETTI DEENABANDHU & ORS. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: H. R. Khanna
R. S. Sarkaria
Judgment Date: 1977-01-11
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed and case remanded to the High Court for disposal of the appeal on merits.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed and case remanded.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Retti Deenabandhu and others

Respondents

State of Andhra Pradesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. C. Agarwala

Counsels for Respondents

• P. P. Rao
• G. N. Rao
• T. V. S. N. Chari

Case Synopsis & Summary

Retti Deenabandhu & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh concerns an appeal against conviction arising from rioting offences under the Indian Penal Code, offences under the Explosive Substances Act and the Indian Arms Act. The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam and sentenced to terms of imprisonment that totaled two years for some and one year for others, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the appellants were entitled to set off the period of pre‑trial detention against the sentence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that it was unnecessary to go into the merits since the matter would be academic. The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal by Special Leave, held that the High Court erred in refraining from examining the merits of the conviction. It reaffirmed that the object of challenging a conviction is not only to avoid punishment but also to erase the stigma and the adverse consequences flowing from the conviction. A convicted person may challenge the conviction even if he has already undergone detention or is eligible for release, and the existence of detention cannot bar the appeal. The Court remanded the case to the High Court for disposal on merits, stating that the appeal should be decided on its merits rather than on academic considerations, and that set‑off under Section 428 does not foreclose a meritorious challenge to conviction.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code – Sections 147, 148, 352Explosive Substances Act – Section 5Indian Arms Act – Section 25Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 428

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

The object of challenging a conviction is to avoid consequences flowing from conviction and to erase the stigma resulting therefrom.
A convicted person challenging his conviction seeks to avoid punishment and erase stigma; detention or entitlement to release does not bar the appeal on its merits.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the High Court erred in declining to examine the merits of the conviction and that detention during investigation does not bar a challenge to conviction; the object of an appeal is to erase stigma and prevent the adverse consequences of the conviction, and the matter should be decided on merits rather than as an academic exercise.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the High Court correctly treated the detention as a basis for considering the set-off under Section 428 CrPC and that the question of merits could be considered only if the set-off affected the outcome; the appeal should be treated in light of the set-off.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

599 RETTI DEENABANDHU & ORS. _v._ STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH _January_ 11, 1977 [H. R. KHANNA AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] _Appeal against conviction-Object_ _of_ _challenge to conviction-High Court_ _should not decline to_ _go_ _into the validity_ _of_ _the conviction on the ground_ _that_ _the_ _appellant is_ ~et _at liberty,_ _by_ _set off under_ _s._ 428 _of_ _the Code_ _of_ _Criminal_ _Procedure_ 1973 _(Act_ 2 _of_ 1974). · A B The appellants, upon conviction under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act, were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The total sentence of imprisonment to be undergone . C for some of the appellants was two years while in the case of other appellants it was one year. The High Court dismissed the appeal in view of the appellants' entitlement to set off the period of their pre-trial detention against the entire sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them after observing that it was not necessary to go into the matter as it would be only of an academic interest. Accepting the appeal by Special Leave and remanding the cases to the High Court for disposing of on merits, the Court, D HELD : ( 1) The High Court was in error in so far as it declined to go into the validity of the conviction of the appellants. [600 Fl (2) The object of a challenge to conviction is to avoid certain consequences flowing from conviction and also to erase the stigma resulting from the. conviction. The fact that the convicted person has already undergone the sentence or is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty because of the length of the period during which he has been under detention during the course of investi- E gation, enquiry and trial cannot prevent the accused from challenging his conviction in appeal. [600 C-Fl CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1977. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 28-2-75 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 462 of 1973. F S. C. _Agarwala_ and _A. P._ _Gupta_ for the Appellants. _P. P._ _Rao,_ G. _N._ _Rao_ and _T._ _V._ S. _N._ _Chari_ for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of G the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants .. The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam for offences under sections 147, 148 and 352 Indian Penal Code. Some of the appellants were also convicted for offences under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 25 of the H Indian Arms Act. They were sentenced to various terms of imprison· ment and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The total sentence of imprisonment to be undergone by some of the appellants was 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977) 2 S.C.R. A two years while in the case of the other appellants it was one year. The appellants went up in appeal to the High Court against the judgment of the trial court. The High Court· referred to the fact that the appellants had been in custody during the course of the investigation, inquiry and trial, for about two years. The appellants were held entitled under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set off the period of detention against the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon B them. The High Court in veiw of the above dismissed the appeal after observing that it was unnecessary to go into the matter as it would be only of an academic interest. ' # c D E F We have heard Mr. Agarwala on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Rao on behalf of the State, and are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court in so far-as it has refrained from going into the merits of the conviction of the appellants, cannot be sustained. The fact that a convicted person has already undergone the sentence or is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty because of the length of the period during which he has been under detention during the course of investigation, inquiry and trial cannot prevent the said person from challenging his conviction in appeal. Conviction for an offence entails certain conse;quences. Conviction also carries with it a stigma for the convicted person. A convicted person in challenging his convicticn in appeal not only seeks to avoid undergoing the punishment imposed upon him as a result of the conviction, he also wants that other evil consequences flowing from the conviction should not visit him and that the stigma which attaches to him because of the conviction should be wiped out. In case the convicted person undergoes the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him or he is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty by the time his appeal against conviction comes up for hearing in view of the length of the period he wa·s in detention during the course of investigation, inquiry or trial, such a person would still be entitled to challenge his conviction. The fact that he is set at liberty and would not have to undergo any further sentence of imprisonment would not debar him from questioning the validity of his conviction. The object of such a challenge to conviction is to avoid the other consequences flowing from conviction and a~so to erase the stigma resulting from the conviction. The High Court, in our view, was in error in so far as it declined to go into the validity of the conviction of the appellants. We, therefore, remand the case to the High Court for disposing of the appeal of the appllants on merit., ## s. R.. Appeal allowed and case remanded.