The Patna High Court has instructed the Registry to identify all such appeals that are pending before the Court and are covered by subsection (4) of Section 374 or subsection (4) of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, observing that effective steps may be taken to get such matters listed under the appropriate heading after obtaining the necessary orders from the Chief Justice. During Guddu Kumar’s criminal appeal hearing, the Division Bench of Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Khatim Reza issued this order.
Facts of the Case
Under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the application has been filed to have the appellant’s sentence commuted and for him or her to be granted bail while the appeal is being heard.
The sole appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Sitamarhi, dated 14.06.2018, in which the appellant was found guilty of violating Sections 363, 366A, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
On July 19, 2018, the criminal appeal was filed.
On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that there are good reasons to interfere with the appealed order. Additional grounds for suspending the appellant’s sentence and releasing him on bail under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are presented, including the fact that there is no likelihood that the appeal will be heard in full in the near future.
In light of the argument made on behalf of the appellant, the court thinks it is appropriate to note a significant statutory provision in sub-section (4) of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at this point, which reads as follows: –
“(4 ) The appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of such filing against a sentence passed under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code.”
The court said, “It is obvious on bare reading of sub-section (4) of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that it mandates the disposal of appeals within a period of six months from the date of filing of appeals, if such appeals are filed against against a sentence passed under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, or section 376E of
It is important to keep in mind that the use of the word “shall” in sub-section (4) of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reveals the legislative intent behind the provision, which is to expedite the process of deciding such appeals within a time frame specified by the provision.
The statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, which stipulated, among other things, that an appeal against the judgment of conviction or acquittal in relation to offenses punishable under sections 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code must be decided within six months of the date of filing.
Judgement
According to the Court, these appeals, which are covered by sub-section (4) of Section 374 and sub-section (4) of Section 377 of the Code, must be heard and resolved as soon as possible.
The Court instructed the Registry to identify all appeals that fall under subsection (4) of Section 374 or subsection (4) of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and are pending before this Court so that effective steps can be taken to list such matters under the appropriate heading after obtaining the necessary orders from the Chief Justice.
The Court made the observation that adhering to the mandatory statutory requirements outlined in sub-section (4) of Section 374 or Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the best interest of justice.
The order reads as follows: “Special Public Prosecutor (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) for the State shall, in the meantime, inform the Court as to whether the informant has in fact been made known about the pendency of the appeal before the Court.”
The petition will be heard again by the court on July 19, 2022.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ROLI NAYAN.
