http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RETTI DEENABANDHU & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/01/1977

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1335            1977 SCR  (2) 599  1977 SCC  (1) 742

ACT:             Appeal  against conviction--Object of challenge to  con-         viction--High Court should not decline to go into the valid-         ity  of the conviction on the ground  that the appellant  is         set  at  liberty,  by set off under s. 428 of  the  Code  of         Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).

HEADNOTE:             The  appellants,  upon  conviction  under  the  relevant         sections of the Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances  Act         and  Arms Act, were sentenced to various terms of  imprison-         ment.   The total sentence of imprisonment to  be  undergone         for  some of the appellants was two years while in the  case         of  other appellants it was one year.  The High  Court  dis-         missed the appeal in view of the appellants’ entitlement  to         set off the period of their pre-trial detention against  the         entire  sentence  of imprisonment imposed  upon  them  after         observing  that  it was not necessary to go into the  matter         as it  would be only of  an academic interest.             Accepting the appeal by Special Leave and remanding  the         cases   to  the High Court for disposing of on  merits,  the         Court,             HELD:  (1 ) The High Court was in error in so far as  it         declined  to  go into the validity of the conviction of  the         appellants.  [600 F]             (2) The object of a challenge to conviction is to  avoid         certain   consequences flowing from conviction and  also  to         erase  the stigma resulting from the conviction.   The  fact         that the convicted person has already Undergone the sentence         or is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty because of the         length  of the period during which he has been under  deten-         tion  during the course of investigation, enquiry and  trial         cannot  prevent the accused from challenging his  conviction         in appeal.  [600 C-F]

JUDGMENT:            CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.  20         of 1977.             Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment   and   Order         dated  28-2-75 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in  Crl.  A.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       No. 462 of 1973.         S.C. Agarwala and A.P. Gupta for the Appellants.         P.P. Rao, G.N. Rao and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondent.         ’The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             KHANNA,  J. This appeal by special leave is against  the         judgment  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court  dismissing  the         appeal filed by the appellants.             The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions         Judge Visakhapatnam for offences under sections 147, 148 and         352  Indian  Penal Code.  Some of the appellants  were  also         convicted  for  offences under section 5  of  the  Explosive         Substances Act and section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.   They         were  sentenced  to various terms of  imprisonment  and  the         sentences  were  ordered  to run  concurrently.   The  total         sentence  of  imprisonment to be undergone by  some  of  the         appellants was         600         two  years while in the case of the other appellants it  was         one year. The appellants went up in appeal to the High Court         against  the  judgment of the trial court.  The  High  Court         referred to the fact that the appellants had been in custody         during  the course of the investigation, inquiry and  trial,         for about two years. The appellants were held entitled under         section  428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to  set         off  the period of detention against the sentence of impris-         onment  imposed  upon them.  The High Court in view  of  the         above  dismissed  the  appeal after observing  that  it  was         unnecessary to go into the matter as it would be only of  an         academic interest.             We  have heard Mr. Agarwala on behalf of the  appellants         and  Mr. Rao on behalf of the State, and are of the  opinion         that  the  judgment of the High Court in so far  as  it  has         refrained  from going into the merits of the  conviction  of         the  appellants, cannot be sustained;  The fact that a  con-         victed  person  has  already undergone the  sentence  or  is         otherwise  entitled  to  be set at liberty  because  of  the         length  of the period during which he has been under  deten-         tion  during the course of investigation, inquiry and  trial         cannot prevent the said person from challenging his  convic-         tion in appeal.   Conviction for an offence entails  certain         consequences.  Conviction also carries with it a stigma  for         the convicted person. A convicted person in challenging  his         conviction. in appeal not only seeks to avoid undergoing the         punishment  imposed upon him as a result of the  conviction,         he also wants that other evil consequences flowing from  the         conviction  should not visit him and that the  stigma  which         attaches  to him because of the conviction should be’  wiped         out. In case the convicted person undergoes the sentence  of         imprisonment imposed upon him or he is otherwise entitled to         be set at liberty by the time his appeal against  conviction         comes up for hearing in view of the length of the period  he         was in detention during the course of investigation, inquiry         or trial, such a person would still be entitled to challenge         his  conviction.   The fact that he is set  at  liberty  and         would not have to undergo any further sentence of  imprison-         ment  would not debar him from questioning the  validity  of         his  conviction.  The object of such a challenge to  convic-         tion is to avoid the other consequences flowing from convic-         tion and also to erase the stigma resulting from the convic-         tion..  The High Court, in our view, was in error in so  far         as it declined to go into the validity of the conviction  of         the appellants.             We,  therefore,  remand the case to the High  Court  for         disposing of the appeal of the appellants on merit.         S.R.                  Appeal allowed and case remanded.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       601