Criminal Appeals Arising From Same Judgment Must Be Heard Together By Division Bench: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court recently ruled that when multiple criminal appeals arise from the same trial court judgment, one involving a sentence of more than ten years and another with a sentence of less than ten years, the appeal with the lesser sentence must also be heard by the Division Bench.

“We answer the reference, thus, that in case some of the criminal appeals arising out of the same Trial Court judgment, carrying a sentence of more than ten years or a Government Appeal for enhancement of sentence or an appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. by the victim is preferred before a Division Bench in accordance with the rules, the criminal appeals arising of the same judgment with lesser sentence i.e. up to ten years, would also be heard by the Division Bench.”, the bench comprising Justices Ashutosh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar, and Alok Kumar Pandey observed.

The Court addressed the issue of whether appeals with sentences up to ten years can be heard by a Division Bench, even if the procedural rules specify such matters are to be disposed of by a Single Judge.

As per the Patna High Court Rules, all appeals carrying sentences of more than ten years are to be placed before the Division Bench and sentences up to ten years are to be heard and disposed of by a Single Judge.

However, the Court said that deviation from the Rules would be permissible to avoid contradictory rulings if the appeal required to be heard by the Single Bench is also heard by the Division Bench. The Court upheld the practice of consolidating appeals before a Division Bench for judgments involving mixed sentences, ensuring administrative efficiency and legal consistency.

"Any decision by a larger Bench than the minimum prescribed would not be a violation of any rule as the list of cases which could be disposed off by a Division Bench, does not necessarily exclude the listing and disposal of a criminal appeal with a sentence only up to ten years.", the court observed.

Also, the Court dismissed the argument that usurpation of the Single Bench jurisdiction by the Division Bench would violate the principle of coram non-judice.

The court said a judgment delivered by an incorrect coram, e.g., a Single Judge deciding a matter meant for a Division Bench, is considered a nullity. However, the converse, i.e., Division Benches hearing appeals meant for Single Judges, does not violate the principles of coram non judice.

“It must not be lost sight of that a rule laying down the powers of a Single Judge is a rule of practice and procedure as to the internal arrangement within the Court for disposal of cases by a particular number of Judges. If the rule says that a case of a type has to be heard by a Division Bench, it cannot be heard by a Single Judge; but if a case which is to be heard by a Single Judge, is finally heard and disposed off by a Division Bench, no party can complain of usurpation or creation of a jurisdiction not vested with the Division Bench.”, the judgment authored by Justice Ashutosh Kumar said.

However, the Court clarified that this practice does not confer jurisdiction upon the Division Bench for matters exclusively designated to be heard and decided by a Single Judge.

“This practice does not create any jurisdiction in the Division Bench in the matters to be exclusively heard and disposed of by a Single Judge.”

The bench deemed it appropriate to bring out an amendment to the Patna High Court Rules regarding the filing of appeals and allocating it before the Benches.

“Let this judgment be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary consideration for carrying out the corresponding amendment in the Patna High Court Rules.”, the court directed.

Case Title: Md. Danish V. State of Bihar, CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3034 of 2017 (and connected matter)

Click here to read/download the judgment