चाइल्ड केयर इंस्टिट्यूट्स जेलों से भी बदतर: इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट
पटना हाईकोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाया है कि जिला अपीलीय अदालत द्वारा दोषसिद्धि के फैसले की पुष्टि करने और सजा आदेश जारी करने के बाद, ट्रायल कोर्ट के पास सीआरपीसी की धारा 389 के तहत दोषी व्यक्तियों को जमानत देने का अधिकार नहीं है। जस्टिस अनिल कुमार सिन्हा ने कहा कि हालांकि ट्रायल कोर्ट को सजा को निलंबित करने और जमानत देने का अधिकार है यदि वह संतुष्ट है कि दोषी व्यक्ति दोषसिद्धि और सजा के खिलाफ अपील पेश करने का इरादा रखता है, यह शक्ति अपील प्रक्रिया तक सीमित है। Advertisement उपरोक्त फैसला अतिरिक्त सत्र न्यायाधीश -16, सासाराम, रोहतास द्वारा एक आपराधिक अपील में पारित फैसले के खिलाफ याचिकाकर्ताओं द्वारा दिए गए एक पुनरीक्षण आवेदन में आया, जिसमें उप-विभागीय न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट, बिक्रमगंज द्वारा पारित सजा के फैसले और सजा के आदेश की पुष्टि की गई थी। सभी याचिकाकर्ताओं को आईपीसी की धारा 379 के तहत दंडनीय अपराध के लिए दो साल की कैद की सजा सुनाई गई। जिला अपीलीय न्यायालय द्वारा दोषसिद्धि की पुष्टि के बाद याचिकाकर्ताओं ने आत्मसमर्पण नहीं किया था, और पटना हाईकोर्ट रूल्स (पीएचसी नियमों) के अनुसार, आत्मसमर्पण प्रमाण पत्र संलग्न किए बिना पुनरीक्षण आवेदन दायर किया गया था। याचिकाकर्ताओं ने तर्क दिया कि ट्रायल कोर्ट ने उन्हें नब्बे दिनों के लिए अनंतिम जमानत दी थी, जिससे वे अपने पुनरीक्षण क्षेत्राधिकार के तहत हाईकोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाने में सक्षम हो गए। इसलिए, उन्होंने तर्क दिया कि अनंतिम जमानत अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी उन्हें आत्मसमर्पण करने की आवश्यकता नहीं थी मामले में शिकायतकर्ता ने प्रारंभिक आपत्ति उठाते हुए कहा कि ट्रायल कोर्ट और अपीलीय अदालत के पास दोषसिद्धि और सजा की पुष्टि होने के बाद जमानत देने की शक्ति नहीं है। उन्होंने पीएचसी नियमों के नियम 57ए का भी हवाला दिया, जो ‘प्रवेश के लिए’ पुनरीक्षण आवेदन पोस्ट करने से पहले आत्मसमर्पण करना अनिवार्य करता है। न्यायालय द्वारा विचार-विमर्श किए गए प्रमुख प्रश्नों में से एक यह था, ‘क्या दोषसिद्धि के फैसले और सजा के आदेश की जिला अपीलीय अदालत द्वारा पुष्टि किए जाने के बाद ट्रायल कोर्ट को दोषी व्यक्तियों को जमानत देने का अधिकार है?’ इस प्रश्न का उत्तर देने के लिए, न्यायालय ने सीआरपीसी की धारा 389 की व्याख्या की, जो ‘अपील लंबित रहने तक सजा के निलंबन’ के बारे में बात करती है; अपीलकर्ता को जमानत पर रिहा किया जाए। कोर्ट ने कहा कि धारा 389(1) अपीलीय अदालत को सजा या आदेश के निष्पादन को निलंबित करने के लिए लिखित रूप में कारण दर्ज करने का अधिकार देती है, जिसके खिलाफ अपील की गई है और यदि अपीलकर्ता कारावास में है तो उसे जमानत पर रिहा किया जा सकता है। इसमें आगे कहा गया है कि धारा 389(3) कहती है कि जहां दोषी व्यक्ति उस न्यायालय को संतुष्ट करता है जिसके द्वारा उसे दोषी ठहराया गया है कि वह अपील प्रस्तुत करने का इरादा रखता है, ट्रायल कोर्ट सजा को निलंबित कर सकता है और दोषी व्यक्ति को इतनी अवधि के लिए जमानत पर रिहा कर सकता है ताकि वह अपील पेश कर सके और सजा को निलंबित करने और जमानत पर रिहा करने के लिए सीआरपीसी की धारा 389 (1) के तहत अपीलीय अदालत से आदेश मांग सके। अदालत ने फैसला सुनाया कि एक बार जब जिला अपीलीय अदालत अपील पर फैसला कर देती है, तो वह अधिकार क्षेत्र खो देती है और सजा को निलंबित नहीं कर सकती या जमानत नहीं दे सकती। न्यायालय ने इस बात पर जोर दिया कि जिला अपीलीय न्यायालय इस मामले में फंक्शनस ऑफिसियो बन जाता है, जिसके पास ट्रायल कोर्ट की दोषसिद्धि और सजा की पुष्टि के बाद जमानत देने का कोई अधिकार नहीं है। इसके अलावा, न्यायालय ने पटना हाईकोर्ट के नियमों के नियम 57 का हवाला दिया, जिसमें कहा गया था कि एक दोषी व्यक्ति को प्रवेश के लिए अपने पुनरीक्षण आवेदन पर विचार करने से पहले संबंधित अदालत में आत्मसमर्पण करना होगा। कोर्ट ने यह स्पष्ट कर दिया कि यदि चार सप्ताह के भीतर समर्पण प्रमाण पत्र जमा नहीं किया जाता है, तो पुनरीक्षण आवेदन बिना किसी समीक्षा के खारिज कर दिया जाएगा। इन विचारों के आलोक में, अदालत ने याचिकाकर्ताओं को फैसले की तारीख से चार सप्ताह के भीतर आत्मसमर्पण प्रमाण पत्र दाखिल करने का निर्देश देते हुए आरोपी की अंतरिम जमानत को बरकरार रखा।
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.176 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-314 Year-2010 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas
- SHIVJAG PASWAN S/O HAWALPUR PASAWAN R/O VILLAGEARANG, P.S- DINARA(BHANAS), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM.
- RAJENDRA PASWAN S/O LATE NARAYAN PASWAN R/O VILLAGEARANG, P.S- DINARA(BHANAS), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM.
- UPENDRA RAM S/O HARI KISHUN RAM R/O VILLAGE- ARANG,
P.S- DINARA(BHANAS), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM. - SANT KUMAR RAM S/O RAJA RAM R/O VILLAGE- ARANG, P.SDINARA(BHANAS), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM.
- SANMUKHA RAM S/O RAJA RAM R/O VILLAGE- ARANG, P.SDINARA(BHANAS), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM.
- SUBA RAM @ SUBA PASWAN S/O LATE NARAYAN PASWAN. R/O
VILLAGE- ARANG, P.S- DINARA(BHANAS), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT
SASARAM. - SHANKAR DAYAL RAM S/O RAJA RAM R/O VILLAGE- ARANG, P.SDINARA(BHANAS), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM.
- SARDAR RAM @ SARDAR PASWAN S/O YAMUNA PASWAN R/O
VILLAGE- ARANG, P.S- DINARA(BHANAS), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT
SASARAM. - HRIDAYA PASWAN S/O YAMUNA PASWAN R/O VILLAGE- ARANG,
P.S- DINARA(BHANAS), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT SASARAM. - RAMASHISH CHAUDHARY S/O LATE OJHA CHAUDHARY R/O
VILLAGE- ARANG, P.S- DINARA(BHANAS), DISTT.- ROHTAS AT
SASARAM.
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar … … Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP
For the informant : Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Advocate
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT/ORDER
14-09-2023 The present revision application has been
preferred by the petitioners against judgment dated
17.08.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 16/2016 by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-16, Sasaram, Rohtas
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
2/14
affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 03.03.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Bikramganj, Rohtas in GR No. 1323/10/Trial No. 820/2016
whereby all the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo SI
for a period of two years for the offence punishable under
Sections 379 IPC. They are also sentenced to undergo SI for a
period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 147
IPC as well as further sentenced to undergo SI for a period of
three months for the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC
directing the sentences to run concurrently.
- It is an admitted position that the petitioners have
not surrendered after affirmance of judgment of conviction and
order of sentence by the District Appellate Court. The present
revision application has been filed without attaching/annexing
the surrender certificate of the petitioners as required under
Rules of the High Court at Patna (hereinafter referred to as the
‘PHC Rules’). - Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
learned District Appellate Court transferred the records of the
case to the original court i.e., trial court of Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas and the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, at this stage, has granted the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
3/14
petitioners provisional bail for ninety days vide order dated
24.11.2022 to enable them to approach this Court under
revisional jurisdiction. He further submits that in view of the
provisional bail granted to the petitioners by the trial court for
approaching this Court under its revisional jurisdiction, the
petitioners are not required to surrender even though the tenure
of provisional bail of ninety days is over. - Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel appearing
for the informant in the present case raises a preliminary
objection and submits that this revisional application is not
ready to be posted and heard under the heading ‘for admission’
by this Court on merit on the ground that neither the trial court
nor the appellate court has power to grant bail when the order of
conviction/sentence has been affirmed by the learned lower
appellate court. He further submits that in view of Rule 57A of
PHC Rules, it is mandatory upon the petitioners to surrender
before their revision application could be posted ‘for
admission’. - On the basis of the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties, three questions arise for determination by
this Court which are as follows:-
(i) whether the trial court is empowered to grant bail to
the convicted persons after the judgment of conviction
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
4/14
and order of sentence has been affirmed by the
District Appellate Court ?
(ii) whether the District Appellate Court can suspend
the sentence and grant bail after the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial
court has been affirmed by it ?
(iii) whether as per Rule 57A of PHC Rules, the
revsionist/petitioner has to surrender to custody in the
concerned court before the revision petition is posted
‘for admission’? - Insofar as question no, (i) is concerned, the
relevant provision of Section 389 of CrPC is to be considered
first which reads as follows:- - Suspension of sentence pending the
appeal; release of appellant on bail.– (1) Pending
any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court
may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order
that the execution of the sentence or order appealed
against be suspended and, also, if he is in
confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his
own bond.
(2.) The power conferred by this section on an
Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High
Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person
to a Court subordinate thereto.
(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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
5/14
three years, or
(ii) where the offence of which such
person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is
on bail, order that the convicted person be released on
bail, unless there are special reasons for refusing bail,
for such period as will afford sufficient time to
present the appeal and obtain the orders of the
Appellate Court under sub- section (1); and the
sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so
released on bail, be deemed to be suspended.
(4.) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to
imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life,
the time during which he is so released shall be
excluded in computing the term for which he is so
sentenced. - Upon perusal of Section 389 CrPC, it could be
said that Section 389(1) empowers the appellate court for
reasons to be recorded in writing to suspend the execution of the
sentence or order appealed against and if the appellant is in
confinement he can be released on bail. - Section 389(3) says where the convicted person
satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to
present an appeal, the trial court may suspend the sentence and
release the convicted person on bail for such period to enable
him to present an appeal and seek orders of the appellate court
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
6/14
under Sub Section (1) of Section 389 CrPC for suspension of
sentence and for release on bail. - Thus, it is clear that power under Section 389(3)
can be exercised by the trial court if the court is satisfied that the
convicted person intends to present an appeal against conviction
and sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not
place any other provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure
under which the trial court can suspend the sentence and grant
bail after the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed by the
District appellate court and the records have been sent back to
the trial court. - In view of the aforesaid discussions, question no.
(i) is answered in negative holding that the trial court is not
empowered to grant bail to the convicted person after the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial
court has been affirmed by the District Appellate Court. - Insofar as question no. (ii) is concerned, the
power of the appellate court for suspension of sentence pending
appeal and for release of appellant on bail is defined in Section
389(1) of the CrPC. I could not find any provision in the Code
of Criminal Procedure which empowers the District Appellate
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
7/14
Court to suspend the sentence after judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the trial court has been affirmed by
it and the appeal has been disposed. There is also no provision
in CrPC empowering the District Appellate Court to grant bail
after disposal of appeal and confirmation of conviction and
sentence to enable the appellant/convict to prefer revision
application before the High Court and to obtain necessary
orders. - Similar question had come for consideration
before the Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Ikbal Chandulal Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra (Cr.
Revision Application No. 301/2022 with Criminal Application
No. 3373/2022 wherein the Bombay High Court in para-12 has
observed that Section 389 of the CrPC deals with suspension of
sentence. The Section opens with the word “pending an appeal
by the convicted persons” that indicates that the appellate court
may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the sentence
pending the appeal preferred by the convict. The Section, in
specific words, clarified that the appellate court may suspend
the sentence pending the appeal only. The suspension remains
during the pendency of the appeal and as soon as the appeal is
disposed of, the suspension order merges in the final judgment
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
8/14
and order. - In paragraph-14 of the said judgment, the
Bombay High Court has taken note of the earlier judgment
passed by it in the case of Dilip S/O Ramchandra Umare v.
State of Maharashtra 1996 CriLJ 721 which is as follows:-
“ In large number of cases, it has been
found that the Sessions Judge, Additional
Sessions Judge, the Joint Sessions Judge, or
lower appellate court as the case may be,
suspends the sentence for some time even after
disposal of appeal against the conviction and
sentence to enable the accused to prefer revision
application before the High Court and obtain
appropriate orders. The Code of Criminal
Procedure does not confer any inherent
jurisdiction on the lower appellate court to
directly or indirectly suspend the sentence after
decision of the appeal. Nor there any specific
power conferred on the lower appellate court
under Code of Criminal Procedure to suspend the
sentence on decision of appeal against the
judgment of conviction and sentence. Obviously,
the power of suspension of sentence can only be
exercised if the Code of Criminal Procedure so
permits not otherwise. There is neither any
power of suspension of sentence nor grant of bail
implicit in the lower appellate court after
decision of the appeal against the judgment of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
9/14
the conviction and sentence nor such power is
inherent. Once the lower appellate court hears
and decide the appeal against the conviction and
sentence passed by the trial court, it becomes
functus officio and ceases to have any power in
the matter to suspend the sentence, or grant bail
even temporarily to enable the accused to
approach High Court by filing revision
application and to obtain appropriate orders from
High Court.” - The judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court
in the case of Krishna Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab (CrMM
34325-2015 in CRR 3960-2015 CrRn-3373-22-J.odt (O&M)
has been relied upon and in paragraph 17 thereof, the Punjab &
Haryana High Court has held that “The only course available,
therefore, would be to execute the order of conviction confirmed
by it, leaving the accused to obtain suspension of sentence and
bail from the High Court by preferring appropriate revision.” - In yet another judgment reported in 1995 SCC
Online Bom 263, the Bombay High Court has held that “the
appellate court while dismissing the appeal is not empowered to
suspend the sentence or grant bail after its decision in appeal to
enable the accused to approach the High Court in revision
application, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not confer any
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
10/14
jurisdiction on the lower appellate court to directly or indirectly
suspend the sentence after decision of the appeal against
conviction. Nor there is any specific power conferred on the
lower appellate court under Code of Criminal Procedure to
suspend the sentence on decision of appeal against the judgment
of conviction and sentence. Once the lower appellate court hears
and decides the appeal against conviction and sentence passed
by the trial court, it becomes functus officio and ceases to have
any power in the matter to suspend the sentence, or grant bail
even temporarily to enable the accused to approach High Court
by filing revision application and to obtain appropriate orders
from High Court. The power of the Appellate Court contained in
Section 389(1) of the CrPC referred to the powers at the time of
hearing and deciding the appeal and not post decision of the
appeal”. - Taking into consideration the aforesaid
discussions and judgment rendered by the various High Courts
and provisions contained in CrPC, in my considered opinion the
power of suspension of sentence and grant of bail can only be
exercised by the District Appellate Court if there is specific
provision in this regard in CrPC. The District Appellate Court
can not grant bail after disposal of appeal by affirming the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
11/14
judgment of conviction and order of sentence. - Accordingly, I arrive at the conclusion that once
the District appellate court decides the appeal against the
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, it becomes
functus officio and ceases to have any power in the matter to
suspend the sentence, or grant bail for certain period to enable
the accused to approach the High Court by filing revision
application to obtain appropriate orders. Consequently, the
question no.(ii) is answered in negative and it is held that
District appellate court has got no power to suspend the
sentence and grant bail after judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the trial court has been affirmed by it. - In order to answer third question, it is necessary
to look into Rule 57 of PHC Rules which was inserted by C.S.
No. 122 dated 23.09.1999. A question was raised earlier before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihari Prasad Singh
v. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 10 SCC 346, as to whether
the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction can
refuse to hear or entertain the matter on the ground that the
accused has not surrendered. The Supreme Court rendered the
judgment upon this on 02.08.1999 holding that under provisions
of Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no such requirement
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
12/14
though many High Courts in this country have made such
provision in the respective rules of the High Court. But there is
no such rule in the Patna High Court Rules. In that view of the
matter the High Court was not justified in rejecting the
application for revision solely on the ground that the accused
has not surrendered. - It appears that after the aforesaid judgment which
was rendered on 02 August 1999, Rule 57A has been inserted in
the rules of Patna High Court Rules on 23.09.1999. Rule 57A of
PHC Rules is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“57A. In the case of revision under Section 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
arising out of a conviction and sentence of
imprisonment, the petition shall state whether the
petitioner had surrendered or not. If he has
surrendered, the petition shall be accompanied by a
certified copy of the relevant order. If he has not
surrendered the petition shall be accompanied by an
application seeking leave to surrender within a
specified period. On sufficient cause being shown,
the Bench may grant such time and on such
conditions as it thinks fit and proper. No such
revision shall be posted for admission unless the
petitioner has surrendered to custody in the
concerned court.” - In another judgment in the case of Vivek Rai v.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
13/14
High Court of Jharkhand as reported in (2015) 12 SCC 86, the
validity of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules was
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32
of the Constitution of India on the ground of infringement of
fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by insisting them to
surrender to custody before the registration of their revision for
hearing. Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court is pari materia
to the Rule 57A of Patna High Court Rules. - The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the validity
of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules holding that it is
well known practice that generally a revision against conviction
and sentence is filed after an appeal is dismissed and the
convicted person is taken into custody in the court itself. The
object of the Rule is to ensure that a person who has been
convicted by two courts obeys the law and does not abscond.
The provision cannot thus be held to be arbitrary in any manner.
The provision is to regulate the procedure of the Court and does
not, in any manner, conflict with the substantive provisions of
CrPC relied upon by the petitioners. - After taking into consideration the above
proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.176 of 2023 dt. 14-09-2023
14/14
question no.(iii) is answered in positive and it is held that before
the revision application filed by the convicted person is posted
‘for admission’, the revisionist/petitioner is required to
surrender to custody in the court concern. - In the result, the preliminary objection raised by
Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel appearing for informant
is sustained and the petitioners are directed to surrender before
the court concern and file a surrender certificate within a period
of four weeks. - It is made clear that if the surrender certificate is
not filed by the petitioners within the aforesaid period of four
weeks, the instant revision application shall stand dismissed
without further reference to the Bench.
Md. Perwez Alam
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 31.08.2023
Uploading Date 14.09.2023
Transmission Date 14.09.2023
