Change In Bench Composition After Conviction But Prior To Sentencing No Ground To Seek Fresh Hearing: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently held that a fresh hearing is not required when the composition of the bench changes after conviction order, especially when no prejudice is caused to the parties.

The bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Archana Puri clarified that the retirement of one judge from the bench does not invalidate the prior decision. 

“It would indeed be a travesty of justice to hold that appeals should be heard afresh while ignoring decision dated 29.01.2020 even while we feel no necessity thereof, before sentencing the respondents or that decision dated 29.01.2020 whereby the respondents have been convicted should be set to naught merely because one of the Members of the Bench delivering the decision, has demitted office on superannuation.” 

The case involved a series of appeals and proceedings related to a criminal case where the accused-respondents were acquitted in a trial. Several appeals were filed challenging this acquittal. 

A Division Bench rendered a judgment on January 29, 2020, convicting the accused of various charges. However, the order for their sentence could not be passed at that time.

Later, due to factors including the retirement of a judge in the Bench and the COVID-19 pandemic, the case was delayed. A subsequent Bench was constituted to deal with the sentencing, which led to arguments from the respondents' side that the 2020 judgment was incomplete as the sentencing order was not passed. They argued that this incomplete judgment should be disregarded and a fresh hearing should take place.

It was also submitted that the composition of the Bench is different from the one which delivered the judgment of conviction. Thus they urged that the appeals be heard afresh since there has to be an application of mind for the purpose of sentencing.

“Severity of sentence will necessarily have to be considered and the same cannot be done without affording an opportunity of being re-heard to the parties”, it was added.

The prosecution countered that the judgment of conviction was passed in January 2020 in open court and the same was duly signed by both the members of the Bench then. The matter was adjourned to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondents before sentencing.

“Re-hearing of the appeals would amount to review which is not permissible,” argued the senior counsel.

After considering the submissions, the Court observed that due opportunity of hearing was afforded to all the parties including the accused at the time of hearing of the appeal. It is only thereafter that decision of conviction was duly pronounced on 29.01.2020. It was also found that the appeals were adjourned merely to secure the presence of all the accused to pass the order of sentence.

The Court also cited Section 326 of the CrPC which allows a successor judge to act on evidence recorded by the predecessor judge. 

The Bench added that the accused failed to point out any ground that any prejudice had been caused to them due to such change in the composition of the Bench.  

As such, the plea was rejected. 

Case Title: Sheela Vs. Brahamjit and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 145

Appearance: A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-D No.101-DB of 2014.

Ankur Mittal, Addl.AG., Haryana

with Saurabh Mago, DAG., Haryana and Kushaldeep K.Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-AD No.30 of 2016.

Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for respondents No.2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CRA-D-101-DB of 2014.

Gaurav Singla, Advocate for respondent No.7.

Click Here To Read/Download Order