TRILOCHAN KAPOOR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is to consider an application under Sec. 389(3) read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), filed by the Petitioner, who was convicted on 29/9/2018, in Sessions Trial (Vigilance) Case No.01 of 2017, by the Court of the Learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, South Sikkim, at Namchi, which was upheld by this Court, in Crl.A. No.40 of 2018, by Judgment dtd. 2/5/2023.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioner intends to prefer an Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Judgment of this Court, upholding the Judgment and Order on Sentence of the Learned Sessions Court, as detailed supra. That, in view of the said circumstance, the sentence may be suspended for at least three months and the Petitioner be allowed to continue on the same Bail Bonds. Relying on Popular Muthiah vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296 Learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court can exercise its inherent power irrespective of the nature of the proceedings and it is not trammelled by procedural restrictions. That, the power can be exercised suo moto in the interest of justice and concurrently with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction for which no formal application is required. That, in R. P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 referred to in the said Judgment supra, the Supreme Court has observed that inherent power should be exercised by the High Court. Hence, in light of the said provisions although Sec. 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. may not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may exercise its inherent powers to suspend the sentence to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the interest of justice.

(3.) Objecting to the petition, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in the first instance the provisions of Sec. 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the instant matter. Secondly, the Supreme Court is not an appellate forum under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and in this view of the matter the question of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court against the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence of this Court does not arise. To buttress his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Mammooty and Others vs. Food Inspector and Others AIR 1987 Kerala 270