HUSSAIN ALAM Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary point arising for determination in this case is: Whether an appeal would lie against a conviction simplicitor, though no sentence has been passed? The events leading up to this question are these. The appellant was tried in the court of Sessions Judge, Rajouri on a charge of kidnapping under section 366 R.P.C. On consideration of the evidence, the court found the charge proved against him and convicted him accordingly. The court then deferred the case for hearing as regards the quantum of sentence as required under the amended Code of Criminal Procedure. But before such hearing could take place, the accused has come up in appeal against the order of conviction. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appeal is against conviction on a trial held by the sessions Judge would be competent even though no sentence has been passed in the case. For this he relied upon section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the decisions in Shankar Sukul and others v. the King and, The Public Prosecutor v. Konduru Venkata Raju.

(2.) Section 410 of the Cr. P. C. provides: Appeal from sentence of Court of Session:-Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge, or an Additional Sessions Judge, may appeal to the High Court.

(3.) The marginal heading of this section which is a key to the interpretation of this section amply demonstrated that no appeal would lie against a mere conviction recorded by a Sessions Judge unless he has passed the sentence as well. To this interpretation support is lent by the fact that there is no provision in the Code-at least none was referred to-under which an appeal would be competent against the sentence passed in the case. Had the intention of the legislature been to confine the operation of this section to conviction to simplicitor, then it would have necessarily made provision for appeal against the sentence passed subsequently. In the circumstances I am not impressed by the argument of the teamed counsel for the appellant that section 410 Cr. P. C. is intended to apply to mere conviction though no sentence has been passed.