Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
'
,-·..
JAGVIR SINGH AND ORS.
~
\I.
;.
STATE(DELHI ADMN.) JUNE 5, 2007
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure: f c
·rt ,.
·"'
Concession with regard to conviction-Judgment of High Court 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 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 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 appeared to be some confusion because there was never and instruction given by appellants not to question the conviction before the High Court. 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 l-.
JAGVIR SINGH v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) (PASA VAT. J.]
94 7 made, the same shall be considered in the proper perspective in accordance _ 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.
Judgment
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 DR. ARIJIT PASAY 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 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 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.
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
[2007) 7 S.C.R.
A appellants was to move the High Court in line with what has been said in
State ofMaharashtra 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 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 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 perspective in accordance with law.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. RP.
Appeal dismissed.
'·