Read Time: 04 minutes

"...merely for execution of the sentence, an appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous", held the Supreme Court last week.

A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath made this observation in an appeal challenging the order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, whereby the regular criminal appeal filed by the appellant came to be dismissed, when no one appeared for him and the Court accepted the submission of the State counsel that the appeal was rendered infructuous for the reason that the appellant had served out the sentence.

The impugned order led to the confirmation of the appellant’s conviction of offence under Section 18 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

It was further pointed out by the appellant that the sentence awarded to him was only of five months’ imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- and even at the initial stage of appeal, it was specifically pointed out before the Court that the appellant had undergone the sentence of imprisonment and had deposited the fine imposed but, he was nevertheless seeking to assail his conviction.

The respondent state attempted to support the conviction and sentence of the appellant but could not dispute the position that merely for execution of the sentence, an appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous.

"... the matter before the High Court was an appeal against conviction. Therein, if nobody was present for the appellant for any reason, the High Court could have taken appropriate steps for representation on behalf of the appellant but, in any case, the appeal could not have been dismissed as infructuous", held the Court.

With this view, the Court while setting aside the order impugned, restored the appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court to its number for consideration on merits. 

"We would request the High Court to afford an adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties before taking final decision in the matter", said the court in conclusion.

Cause Title: GURJANT SINGH v STATE OF PUNJAB