# RETTI DEENABANDHU & ORS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 599
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-01-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1977
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, R. S. Sarkaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/retti-deenabandhu-ors-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-7075
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Appeal against conviction-Object of challenge to conviction-High Court
should not decline to go into the validity of the conviction on the ground that
the appellant is ~et at liberty, by set off under s. 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). ·
A
B
The appellants, upon conviction under the relevant sections of the Indian
Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act, were sentenced to various
terms of imprisonment. The total sentence of imprisonment to be undergone . C
for some of the appellants was two years while in the case of other appellants
it was one year. The High Court dismissed the appeal in view of the appellants' entitlement to set off the period of their pre-trial detention against the
entire sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them after observing that it
was not necessary to go into the matter as it would be only of an academic
interest.
Accepting the appeal by Special Leave and remanding the cases
to the
High Court for disposing of on merits, the Court,
D
HELD : ( 1) The High Court was in error in so far as it declined to go
into the validity of the conviction of the appellants.
[600 Fl
(2) The object of a challenge to conviction is to avoid certain consequences flowing from conviction and also to erase the stigma resulting from
the. conviction. The fact that the convicted person has already undergone the
sentence or is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty because of the length of the
period during which he has been under detention during the course of investiE
gation, enquiry and trial cannot prevent the accused from challenging his conviction in appeal.
[600 C-Fl

## Text

599
RETTI DEENABANDHU & ORS.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
January 11, 1977
[H. R. KHANNA AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.]
Appeal against conviction-Object of challenge to conviction-High Court
should not decline to go into the validity of the conviction on the ground that
the appellant is ~et at liberty, by set off under s. 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). ·
A
B
The appellants, upon conviction under the relevant sections of the Indian
Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act, were sentenced to various
terms of imprisonment. The total sentence of imprisonment to be undergone . C
for some of the appellants was two years while in the case of other appellants
it was one year. The High Court dismissed the appeal in view of the appellants' entitlement to set off the period of their pre-trial detention against the
entire sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them after observing that it
was not necessary to go into the matter as it would be only of an academic
interest.
Accepting the appeal by Special Leave and remanding the cases
to the
High Court for disposing of on merits, the Court,
D
HELD : ( 1) The High Court was in error in so far as it declined to go
into the validity of the conviction of the appellants.
[600 Fl
(2) The object of a challenge to conviction is to avoid certain consequences flowing from conviction and also to erase the stigma resulting from
the. conviction. The fact that the convicted person has already undergone the
sentence or is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty because of the length of the
period during which he has been under detention during the course of investiE
gation, enquiry and trial cannot prevent the accused from challenging his conviction in appeal.
[600 C-Fl
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 20 of
1977.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
28-2-75 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 462 of 1973.
F
S. C. Agarwala and A. P. Gupta for the Appellants.
P. P. Rao, G. N. Rao and T. V. S. N. Chari for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of
G
the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the
appellants ..
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge
Visakhapatnam for offences under sections 147, 148 and 352 Indian
Penal Code. Some of the appellants were also convicted for offences
under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 25 of the
H
Indian Arms Act. They were sentenced to various terms of imprison·
ment and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The total
sentence of imprisonment to be undergone by some of the appellants was
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 2 S.C.R.
A
two years while in the case of the other appellants it was one year. The
appellants went up in appeal to the High Court against the judgment of
the trial court. The High Court· referred to the fact that the appellants
had been in custody during the course of the investigation, inquiry and
trial, for about two years. The appellants were held entitled under
section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set off the
period of detention against the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon
B
them. The High Court in veiw of the above dismissed the appeal after
observing that it was unnecessary to go into the matter as it would be
c
D
E
F
only of an academic interest.
'
We have heard Mr. Agarwala on behalf of the appellants and Mr.
Rao on behalf of the State, and are of the opinion that the judgment of
the High Court in so far-as it has refrained from going into the merits
of the conviction of the appellants, cannot be sustained. The fact that
a convicted person has already undergone the sentence or is otherwise
entitled to be set at liberty because of the length of the period during
which he has been under detention during the course of investigation,
inquiry and trial cannot prevent the said person from challenging his
conviction in appeal.
Conviction for an offence entails certain conse-
;quences.
Conviction also carries with it a stigma for the convicted
person. A convicted person in challenging his convicticn in appeal not
only seeks to avoid undergoing the punishment imposed upon him as
a result of the conviction, he also wants that other evil consequences
flowing from the conviction should not visit him and that the stigma
which attaches to him because of the conviction should be wiped out.
In case the convicted person undergoes the sentence of imprisonment
imposed upon him or he is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty by the
time his appeal against conviction comes up for hearing in view of the
length of the period he wa·s in detention during the course of investigation, inquiry or trial, such a person would still be entitled to challenge
his conviction. The fact that he is set at liberty and would not have to
undergo any further sentence of imprisonment would not debar him
from questioning the validity of his conviction. The object of such a
challenge to conviction is to avoid the other consequences flowing from
conviction and a~so to erase the stigma resulting from the conviction.
The High Court, in our view, was in error in so far as it declined to
go into the validity of the conviction of the appellants.
We, therefore, remand the case to the High Court for disposing of
the appeal of the appllants on merit.
,
s. R..
Appeal allowed and case remanded.