http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  67 of 2002

PETITIONER: Jagvir Singh & Ors

RESPONDENT: State (Delhi Admn.)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/06/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, 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 appellants was to move the High Court in line with what  has been said in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas  Nayak and Anr (1982 (2) SCC 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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.