- (1.) this Court while allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2008 and connected criminal appeal vide judgment and order dated 24.7.2012 framed following issue for determination : Whether the High Court while exercising appellate powers under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can extend the benefit of its' judgment in favour of the non-appealing co-accused tried together, assigned identical role and punished for identical offence by the trial Court?. The registry of the High Court has provided a separate number and has registered the same as Misc. Application No. 227273 of 2012. Sri P.N. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate, Sri D.S. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Akhilesh Singh, Government Advocate were heard as friends of the Court. Counsels have fairly stated the legal position on the issue involved. this Court at the outset records its appreciation for the valuable assistance provided. Counsels have made reference to the revisional powers conferred upon the High Court under Section 397 and Section 401 Cr.P.C. and inherent powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon the High Court.
(2.) On the larger plain, it has been submitted by all the learned Senior Counsels that the High Court is the highest Court of justice at the State level. It has been conferred revisional powers under Sections 397 and Section 401 Cr.P.C. and inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for doing complete justice, and to pass such orders as may be warranted in the facts of the case for securing the ends of justice. All forms of judicial injustice can be impinged upon by the High Court, if it is, so required even suo motu to hold otherwise would be bad for the criminal justice system.
(3.) The learned Government Advocate Sri Akhilesh Singh appearing for the State of U.P. has fairly stated before the Court that it cannot, be disputed, as a proposition of law, that in exercise of revisional powers as provided under Section 401 Cr.P.C. and under inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can suo motu in its discretion pass such orders to do substantial justice or to meet the ends of justice as may be warranted in the facts of the case. It can extend the benefit of its judgment to a non appealing accused when it has come to a conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the appealing accused has been found to be contrary to law and has set aside the same and that the evidence against the non-; appealing convicts is even weaker. He further urged that the legal pronouncements of the Apex Court and various High Courts cited at bar lead to the same conclusion.;