Supreme Court: Whether appellate court must hear accused on the point of sentence while convicting him after setting aside order of his acquittal?

It can be seen from Section 386(a), Code of Criminal Procedure, that where in an appeal from an order of acquittal, the court hearing the appeal finds the Accused guilty it is required to pass a sentence on him according to law. {Para 13}

14. In Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets   MANU/SC/8414/2008 : 2008:INSC:1437, this Court interpreting Section 386(a), Code of Criminal Procedure, while holding that appellate court ought not, after recording conviction, remit the matter to the trial court and that the appellate court is obligated to impose an appropriate sentence, held as under:

26. This Court has also noticed a strange and very disturbing feature of the case. The High Court, after convicting the Appellant Under Section 138 of the Act, remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate for passing appropriate order of sentence. This course, adopted by the learned Single Judge, is unknown to law. The learned Single Judge was hearing an appeal from an order of acquittal. The powers of the appellate court, in an appeal from an order of acquittal, are enumerated in Section 386(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Those powers do not contemplate that an appellate court, after recording conviction, can remit the matter to the trial court for passing appropriate order of sentence. The judicial function of imposing appropriate sentence can be performed only by the appellate court when it reverses the order of acquittal and not by any other court. Having regard to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 this Court is of the view that after finding the Appellant guilty Under Section 138 of the Act, the judicial discretion of imposing appropriate sentence could not have been abdicated by the learned Single Judge in favour of the learned Magistrate. Having found the Appellant guilty Under Section 138 of the Act it was the bounden duty of the High Court to impose appropriate sentence commensurate with the facts of the case. Therefore, we do not approve or accept the procedure adopted by the High Court. Be that as it may, in this case, we have found that reversal of acquittal itself was not justified.

[Emphasis supplied]

15. Not only should the appellate court not remand the matter to the trial court only for the purpose of imposing a sentence, after it finds Accused guilty, it has a bounden duty to hear and impose an appropriate sentence.

16. The appellate court which will include the High Court, in a given scenario, while recording a conviction after reversing the acquittal, should adjourn the matter to a suitable date, hear the convicts, and impose an appropriate sentence itself.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019

Decided On: 08.10.2026

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1143/2026,2026 INSC 1099.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page