NEW DELHI, JULY 27: The Supreme Court has severely criticised the Allahabad High Court for entertaining a petition by accused persons who deliberately absented themselves before the trial court on various dates fixed for pronouncement of sentence after their conviction in a murder case.A sessions court convicted three persons after a trial for over 16 years but the convicts did not appear before it when the judge was to pronounce order on the sentence to be awarded to them.The trial court then issued non-bailable arrest warrants against them. But when the accused approached the Lucknow bench of the High Court levelling allegations against the sessions judge, the High Court stayed the execution of the arrest warrants and stayed further proceedings before trial court.The Supreme Court while vacating the High Court order and sending the convicts to jail, observed: ``It appears that unfortunately the High Court by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the criminal procedure code(cr.P.C.) has prevented the flow of justice''.A division bench comprising Justice K T Thomas and Justice M B Shah said, ``In our view, the order passed by the High Court entertaining the petition of the convicted accused under section 482 of the code is, on the face of it, illegal''.Justice M B Shah, writing the judgement for the bench, said, ``It was known to the High Court that the trial court passed proceedings to the effect that final judgement and order convicting the accused were pronounced. It was also recorded by the trial court that as the accused were absent, the court had issued non-bailable warrants.``In such a situation, instead of directing the accused to remain present before the court for resorting to steps contemplated by the law for passing the sentence, the High Court has stayed further proceedings including the operation of the arrest warrants issued by the trial court,'' Justice Shah said.The Supreme Court said ``It is disquieting that the High Court has overlooked theimportant legal aspect that accused have a right of appeal against the order of conviction.''``In such circumstances the High Court ought not to have entertained a petition under section 482 of the code and stonewalled the very efficacious alternative remedy of appeal,'' it said. ``Merely because the accused made certain allegations against trial judge the substantive law cannot be bypassed,'' the apex court observed.
