SHAJI @ SHAIJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 12/2015 arises from S.C. No. 54/2013 on the file of the Special Court for the trial of offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mananthavady, while Criminal Appeal No. 980/2025 arises from S.C. No. 390/2021 on the file of the Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases/Additional Sessions Judge - II, Kalpetta, Wayanad. On the merits, these appeals are not connected. However, they are disposed of by common judgment as the appellants have requested that they be permitted to withdraw the appeals. Based on this submission, this Court is called upon to determine whether these appeals have to be heard on the merits or whether this Court can permit the appeals to be withdrawn. It is not necessary to examine the facts of the individual cases.

(2.) Sri. Shyam V., the learned counsel representing the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2015, and Sri. Ajivass V.A., the learned counsel representing the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 980/2025, submitted that the appellants have served their sentence, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2015 has paid the entire fine amount, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 980/2025 has served the default sentence (on failure to pay the fine) as well. It is further submitted that the appellants do not wish to prosecute the appeals to get over the possible stigma associated with a conviction, and thus, they may be permitted to withdraw the appeals.

(3.) Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor, points out that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS') permitting withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant, except withdrawal by the Public Prosecutor under Sec. 321 Cr.P.C corresponding to Sec. 360 of the BNSS. He submits that there are several decisions of the Supreme Court which categorically state that once a criminal appeal is admitted, such an appeal has to be disposed of on its merits, after calling for the records. He refers to the decision of this Court in Samul Philipose v. Koshy Thomas, 2009 (4) KLT 360, and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M.P. v. Mooratsingh, 1975 KHC 1082. However, he argues that the High Court may, in fit cases, permit withdrawal of an appeal under its inherent powers envisaged under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C corresponding to Sec. 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice. He pointed out that since inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C corresponding to Sec. 528 of the BNSS can be exercised only by the High Court, such withdrawal may not be permissible in the case of an appeal pending before the Sessions Court. In essence, it is his submission that the inherent powers of the High Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C corresponding to Sec. 528 of the BNSS are independent and not circumscribed by Sec. 386 Cr.P.C corresponding to Sec. 427 of the BNSS. He pointed out that even after a sentence is served and fines are paid, an appeal may be pursued to remove the stigma of conviction or for other reliefs, and under Sec. 394 of the Cr.P.C. corresponding Sec. 435 of the BNSS, near relatives may decide to prosecute the appeal or accept the verdict after the death of the accused (in cases involving a sentence of fine).