Appeal the only remedy in criminal law, cannot be defeated by technicality that prejudices appellant: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently exhorted Criminal Appellate Courts to exercise caution before allowing withdrawal applications that could prejudice the applicant (Vipin Sharma v. State of Punjab)..The instant case involved a plea to withdraw an application to condone delay before an appellate court in Nawanshahr. The acceptance of the withdrawal application ultimately led to the dismissal of the appeal itself for delay..While deciding on the accused-appellant's revision petition against orders permitting the withdrawal as well as the dismissal of his appeal, Justice Manoj Bajaj of the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed,."It needs to be constantly borne in mind that in criminal law, there is only one remedy of appeal, therefore, it acquires much importance and the said remedy cannot be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds."Punjab and Haryana High Court.While conceding that a straitjacket formula could not be evolved in this matter, the High Court opined that courts should seek an explanation from the counsel when a plea is moved to withdraw an application. .Further, the Court permitting the withdrawal should also record the reasons for exercising its discretion to allow the withdrawal application.."… in cases, where the acceptance of request for withdrawal of the application or the petition would cause prejudice to the litigant by leaving him without redress, in that eventuality, the Court must not only seek explanation from the counsel, who makes the prayer, but should itself mention the reasons for acceptance in the order. The acceptance or refusal of such a prayer by Courts is discretionary in nature and, therefore, it needs to be exercised on the strength of the sound judicial principles", the Court said..In this case, the revision-petitioner and a co-accused had preferred appeals against an order of conviction by a trial court. Notably, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Nawanshahr appellate court. .The revision petitioner, therefore, filed his appeal along with an application to condone delay. The condonation of delay application was thereafter withdrawn by the appellant’s counsel, with the court’s permission. .Subsequently, the appeal itself was dismissed against him for the delay, while the appeal of his co-accused was allowed..The revision-petitioner/appellant’s counsel in the Nawanshahr appellate court had sought the withdrawal of the condonation application because his client had failed to contact him..The High Court observed that the counsel could have “requested for withdrawal of the power of attorney, for no instructions”..However, the withdrawal of the application itself by the Counsel rendered the sentence against the revision-petitioner final and left him without remedy. Justice Bajaj observed, ."Even otherwise, it does not appeal to common sense that once the convict has chosen to challenge the judgment of conviction, why he would abandon his statutory right abruptly to embrace the punishment recorded by the trial Court (?)".In view of these observations, the revision petition was allowed, and the appeal was directed to be reconsidered..Read the Order: