Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe examines conflict on whether surrender is mandatory before entertaining criminal revision/appeal
The Supreme Court has referred an important question of criminal procedure to a larger Bench.
The issue is whether a High Court can exempt a convicted person from surrendering before it entertains a criminal revision or appeal.
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the order.
The Bench found that the issue involves an important question of law. It also noted an apparent conflict in precedent and statutory interpretation.
The matter arose from challenges to High Court practices that allow convicts to pursue revision or appellate remedies without first surrendering to custody.
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It particularly considered Sections 389 and 482 CrPC.
The Bench also looked at relevant High Court Rules governing the maintainability of criminal revision petitions.
The Court noted that Section 389 CrPC empowers courts to suspend a sentence pending appeal.
However, the Bench observed that the CrPC does not expressly provide for exemption from surrender before a convict invokes revisional or appellate jurisdiction.
The Court therefore considered whether High Courts can grant such exemption through inherent powers or procedural rules.
During the hearing, the Bench considered earlier decisions, including Vivek Rai v. High Court of Jharkhand and Daulat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
The Court noted that these decisions reflect different approaches on whether surrender is a mandatory precondition.
Some judicial views permit exemption from surrender in appropriate cases.
Other decisions hold that a convict must surrender before maintaining a criminal revision.
The Bench also took note of provisions such as Rule 311(3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952.
It further considered the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
The submissions before the Court highlighted conflicting judicial positions across jurisdictions.
The issue, therefore, raised concerns about uniformity in High Court practice.
The Bench observed that the statutory scheme does not expressly permit exemption from surrender.
At the same time, the CrPC specifically provides for suspension of sentence.
The Court noted that allowing exemption through inherent powers may raise procedural concerns.
Such an approach, the Bench indicated, may bypass safeguards built into criminal law.
The Supreme Court observed that the question has wide ramifications for criminal procedure.
It also affects the manner in which High Courts entertain criminal revisions and appeals filed by convicted persons.
The Bench therefore found that a larger Bench should authoritatively settle the issue.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed that the issue be placed before a larger Bench.
The larger Bench will decide whether a High Court can exempt a convict from surrendering before entertaining a revision or appeal.
The Court did not decide the issue on merits.
The matter will now await consideration by the larger Bench.
