KRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) As we are inclined to pass an order of remand to the High Court, we need not refer to the facts in detail.

(3.) The impugned order by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision No. 1516/2013 enhances the sentences imposed on the appellants for offences under Ss. 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. It is noticed, however, that the appellants though served notice, no legal representation was made on their behalf. In such a situation, the High court ought to have appointed an Amicus Curiae in the absence of counsel as observed by this Court in Parveen v. State of Haryana.[1] It is to be noted that the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore District dtd. 4/12/2006 was challenged by the victim/revision petitioner in the aforementioned criminal revision filed in 2013. The delay was condoned on 13/12/2013. Thereupon, the revision petition remained pending and had come up for hearing after almost five years on 24/10/2018, when the impugned order was passed. The impugned order mentions that the notice has been served to the appellants herein and their names have been printed in the cause list but there was no representation on their behalf. There is lack of clarity on when the notice was actually served and whether the appellants were informed that the criminal revision will be taken up for final hearing. Therefore, it appears the ex parte enhancement of sentence is against the statutory mandate of the law as delineated in the conjoint reading of Sec. 401(1) and first proviso to Sec. 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These Sec. adumbrate an opportunity of showing cause before enhancement of sentence in criminal revision. This opportunity, as held in Govind Ramji Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 4 SCC 718, mandates that the High Court should give the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. Be that as it may, it is apparent that it is only the counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard. The court did not have the benefit of the arguments on behalf of the Appellants. In the given fact, in our opinion, the High Court was wrong in not appointing an Amicus Curiae. This being an accepted and admitted position, we quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 24/10/2018 with an order of remand to the High Court to decide the revision petition afresh and in accordance with law.