Holding

The Supreme Court cannot entertain the claim; the only remedy is to move the High Court to correct the record, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellants Jagvir Singh and others were convicted by a trial court under IPC sections 342, 365, 330 read with 34. The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction, observing that the appellants’ counsel had not challenged the conviction but only argued on the quantum of sentence, and it found the sentence not disproportionate. The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that no concession regarding the conviction had been made and that they were never instructed not to question it. The Supreme Court held that if a concession was not actually made, the proper remedy is to move the High Court to correct the record; the matter cannot be reopened at the Supreme Court stage. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal. The decision relied on precedents that a party must raise objections while the record is still fresh before the same judge.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a claim that no concession was made concerning the conviction when the High Court record indicates a concession.
Whether the appropriate remedy for correcting the record is to move the High Court rather than approach the Supreme Court.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 330, s. 34, s. 342, s. 365

Subjects

convictionconcessionappellate jurisdictioncriminal lawIPChigh courtSupreme Courtrecord correctionsentenceappeal dismissed

Judgment

A JAGVIR SINGH AND ORS.
' ,-·.. ~
;.
\I.

STATE(DELHI ADMN.)

JUNE 5, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Practice and Procedure:
f

Concession with regard to conviction-Judgment of High Court
c mentioning that counsel for accused did not question conviction recorded by
trial court but addressed the court on sentence only-However, sentence not
found disproportionate-Plea that no instruction was g_iven by accused not
to question the conviction before the High Court-Held: The only course
qpen was to move the High Court-It is not open to contend before Supreme
·rt D Court to the contrary-Interference in the matter declined-However, if any
,. motion is made before High Court, the same would be considered in
·"'
accordance with law. .;;;
\
Appellants were convicted by the trial court of offences punishable under
Sections 342, 365 and 330 read with Section 34 IPC. While disposing of the
E appeal filed by the accused-appellants, the High Court noted that counsel for
the accused did not question the conviction and addressed the Court on
quantum of sentence only. The High Court, however, did not held the sentence
to be disproportionate, keeping in view the nature of the offence.

In the Instant appeal filed by the accused, it was contended that there
F appeared to be some confusion because there was never and instruction given
by appellants not to question the conviction before the High Court.
l-.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : If really there was no concession. The only course open to the
G appellants was to move the High Court. 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. The
Court declines to interfere in the matter. However, it is made clear that if any
motion is made before the High Court as to the claim that no concession was

H 946
JAGVIR SINGH v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) (PASA VAT. J.] 94 7
made, the same shall be considered in the proper perspective in accordance A
_ with law. [Paras 4 and 5) [947-H; 948-A, C, DI

State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr., (1982) 2
SCC 463 and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd and Ors.,
(2002) AIR SCW 4939, relied on.
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 67 of
2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2001 of the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. l l of 1994.
c
Ashok Bhan, Sunita Sharma for the Appellant.

B.B. Singh, Kiran Bhardwaj and D.S. Mabra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, 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 E
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 F
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. G
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 H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A appellants was to move the High Court in line with what has been said in
State ofMaharashtra V. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr.. [1982] 2 sec 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
B 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
C 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, 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
D perspective in accordance with law.

6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

RP. Appeal dismissed.