The position is crystal clear that the appeal cannot be posted unless proof of surrender has been furnished by the appellant, the court said.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that an appeal filed by a convict enlarged on bail after suspension of his/ her sentence by the trial court cannot be heard by it unless he/ she surrenders as required under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
A vacation bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice Alamas Kabir said Order XXI Rule 13A of Supreme Court Rules requiring convicts to surrender before their appeal could be admitted for hearing have overriding effect on any special provision of law or Section 389 of CrPC under which they may have been granted bail by the trial court.
The ruling came on appeals by M S Srinivasan and two others convicted by a Mumbai Special Court, constituted under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction of Securities) Act, 1992, which had suspended the sentence and the fine imposed on them.
"The position is crystal clear that the Criminal Appeal cannot be posted unless proof of surrender has been furnished by the appellant who has been convicted," it said.
"The requirement of Order XXI Rule 13A are mandatory in character and have to be complied with except when an order is passed for exemption from surrendering," it emphasised.
Appellants' counsel Kamini Jaiswal had submitted that the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 had no application to the present case, as there was a special provision Section 9(4) of the Act authorising the concerned court to regulate its procedure and it was in exercise of that power that the operation of the sentence was suspended.
Rejecting her contention, the bench said: "Under Section 9(4) of the Act the Special Court is authorised to formulate its own procedure. That cannot do away with the requirement stipulated under Order XXI Rule 13A."
"The Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution and all other powers in this behalf by this court and the Rules have been made with approval of the President," the bench pointed out.
The apex court said," Though it is the case of the learned counsel for the appellant that Order XXI Rule 13A cannot in anyway affect powers available to Special Courts under Section 9(4), there is no substance in the plea for the simple reason that Section 9(4) only permits the Special Courts to regulate the procedure before it."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}