9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Revisional court's authority to remand the case for proper sentencing. 2. Applicant's rush to the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with the revisional court's authority to remand a case for proper sentencing. The applicant was convicted under specific sections of the Central Excises and Salt Act and released on probation by the trial court. The State filed a revision against the sentence, leading the revisional court to set aside the probation order and remand the case for the trial court to pass sentence according to law. The High Court observed that the revisional court had the jurisdiction to alter the sentence and that the applicant could still appeal or seek revision after the trial court's decision. The High Court cited a previous case where a similar remand was deemed appropriate, emphasizing that the applicant would have the opportunity to appeal after the trial court's decision. Therefore, the High Court found no irregularity in the revisional court's decision to remand the case for proper sentencing. 2. The judgment also addresses the applicant's rush to the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The High Court noted that the intervention under this section is not favored when the trial is at an advanced stage, a view supported by the Supreme Court. In this case, the applicant did not appeal the conviction but directly approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The High Court emphasized that the applicant had not exhausted the remedy of appeal available against the conviction and that no interference could be made under Section 482 Cr. P.C. at this stage. The High Court rejected the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., stating that the applicant could seek remedy after the trial court's sentencing decision.
|
