A, an accused is charged and convicted for theft under Section 380 (theft in a building) of I.P.C. by a Magistrate, for 2 years imprisonment. Convict A prefers an appeal against the conviction. The appellate court alters the finding and convicts… Is the order passed by the appellate court sustainable at law?

Questions: A, an accused is charged and convicted for theft under Section 380 (theft in a building) of I.P.C. by a Magistrate, for 2 years imprisonment. Convict A prefers an appeal against the conviction. The appellate court alters the finding and convicts the accused under Section 379 (theft simpliciter) but maintains the sentence of imprisonment of 2 years. Is the order passed by the appellate court sustainable at law? Give reasons in support of your answer.

Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [A, an accused is charged and convicted for theft under Section 380 (theft in a building) of I.P.C. by a Magistrate, for 2 years imprisonment. Convict A prefers an appeal against the conviction. The appellate court alters the finding and convicts… Is the order passed by the appellate court sustainable at law?]

Answer

The convict has a right to appeal against his conviction, and the sentence imposed upon him as per the laws because the judiciary’s ultimate purpose is to ensure justice is imparted in the true sense. Appellate Court has got ample powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 386 of CrPC defines the powers of the appellate Courts in dealing with appeals. In exercise of appellate power under section 386, the High Court has full power to reverse an order of acquittal, and if the accused are found guilty, they can be sentenced according to law.

As observed in the case of Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 73 Bom LR 36 (SC), the Code gives ample powers to the Courts to alter or amend a charge, whether by the trial Court or by the appellate Court, provided that the accused is not to face a charge for a new offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in the dark about the charge or in not giving a full opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him, on the charge finally preferred against him.

Therefore, it is clear that in the present case, when the appellate court alters the finding and convicts the accused under Section 379 (theft simpliciter) but maintains the sentence of imprisonment of 2 years, the accused is not charged with a completely new offence or is not even prejudiced with the judgment because of no enhanced punishment. Hence, the order passed by the appellate court is sustainable in law.

---

Important Mains/Long Questions for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
11. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part XI: Important Questions