Criminal Appeals Arising from the Same Judgment Should Be Heard Together by the Division Bench: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court recently held that if more than one criminal appeal arises from the same court order, one with a sentence of more than ten years and the other with a sentence of less than ten years, the appeal with a lesser sentence should also be heard by the court. Section Bench.

“Therefore, some of the criminal appeals arise from the same Judicial Court decision, involve a sentence of more than ten years, or a Government Appeal for enhancement of sentence or Cr. “The victim’s PC is preferred before the Chamber Board in accordance with the rules, and criminal objections arising from the same decision and requiring a lesser penalty of up to ten years will also be discussed by the Chamber Board.”consists of a bench Judges Ashutosh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar and Alok Kumar Pandey observed.

The Court addressed the issue of whether appeals carrying penalties of up to ten years could be heard by the Divisional Bench, even though the rules of procedure stated that such cases would be heard by the Single Judge.

According to the Patna High Court Rules, all appeals involving sentences exceeding ten years will be referred to the Division Bench and sentences up to ten years will be heard and decided by the Single Judge.

However, the Court stated that if the appeal, which should be heard by the Single Board, is also heard by the Divisional Board, deviation from the Rules may be allowed in order to avoid conflicting decisions. In order to ensure administrative efficiency and legal consistency, the Court approved the practice of consolidating appeals before the Chamber Board for decisions involving mixed sentences.

“Any decision made by a Board greater than the minimum prescribed shall not constitute a violation of any rule, for the list of cases which may be disposed of by a Divisional Board does not necessarily exclude the listing and disposal of criminal appeal with a mere penalty of up to ten years.”the court observed.

Moreover, the Court held that the usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Single Board by the Divisional Board, Coram out of judiciary.

The court said that a decision taken by a wrong judge, for example, a Single Judge deciding a matter for the Division Bench, would be deemed invalid. However, the opposite, i.e. hearing of appeal from Divisional Courts to Single Judges, does not violate the principles of coram non judice.

“It should not be overlooked that a rule determining the powers of a single judge is a rule of practice and procedure regarding the internal regulation within the Court regarding the determination of cases by a certain number of judges. IIf the rule says that a case of some kind should be heard by a Division Bench, that case cannot be heard by a Single Judge; but if a case to be heard by a Single Judge is ultimately heard and decided by a Divisional Bench, no party can complain of usurpation or creation of jurisdiction not vested in the Divisional Bench..”decision written by Judge Ashutosh Kumar in question.

However, the Court clarified that this practice does not confer jurisdiction on the Division Bench on matters designated for hearing and decision by the Single Judge alone.

“This practice does not create any jurisdiction in the Chamber Board on matters that must be heard and decided exclusively by the Single Judge.”

The Bench found it appropriate to make an amendment to the Patna High Court Rules regarding the filing of an appeal and its allocation before Benches.

“Allow this order to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for due consideration for implementation of the relevant amendment in the Patna High Court Rules.”the court ordered.

Case Title: Art. Denmark V. State of Bihar, CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3034 of 2017 (and related matter)

Click to read/download the decision