Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RETTI DEENABANDHU & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided
11 January 1977
Judges listed
HANS RAJ KHANNA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1977] 2 S.C.R. 599 · 1977 INSC 7
Also cited as
  • (1977) 1 SCC 742 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants ..

p. 599, margin G

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 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 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 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 only of an academic interest. '

pp. 599–600, margin G

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.

p. 600, margin B

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.

p. 600, margin F