Supreme Court: High Court cannot enhance sentence in revision without giving accused opportunity to be heard

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 4 November 2026

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In SHEKAPPA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1130, the Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot enhance a sentence in a criminal revision application without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard, as mandated by Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

A High Court, while exercising its revisional powers under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot enhance the sentence awarded to an accused without first affording the accused a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as explicitly required by Section 401(2) of the CrPC.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates representing accused persons in revision applications must ensure that their clients are given a proper opportunity to be heard before any adverse order, particularly sentence enhancement, is passed. Litigants should be aware that a High Court's power to enhance a sentence in revision is not absolute and is subject to the principles of natural justice and statutory safeguards under CrPC Section 401(2).

Key Legal Takeaways

1High Court cannot enhance sentence in revision without hearing the accused.
2Section 401(2) CrPC mandates an opportunity to be heard for the accused.
3Violation of Section 401(2) CrPC renders the enhancement order unsustainable.

The Legal Issue The Supreme Court addressed whether a High Court can enhance a sentence in a criminal revision application without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard. The case involved an appeal against a High Court order that enhanced the sentence of the appellants without hearing them, in contravention of Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). For new proceedings, counsel should confirm the applicability of Section 369 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), noting that Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS provides for pending proceedings to continue under the CrPC.

Court's Reasoning The Supreme Court observed that Section 401(2) of the CrPC explicitly states that no order under Section 401 shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless they have had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in their own defence. The High Court's order enhancing the sentence without affording such an opportunity to the appellants was a clear violation of this statutory mandate. The Court found that the High Court had failed to comply with this fundamental procedural requirement, rendering its order unsustainable. The Court reiterated that the principles of natural justice and statutory safeguards must be strictly adhered to when exercising revisional powers that could adversely affect an accused.

What Follows The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order to the extent it enhanced the sentence of the appellants. The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of the revision application, specifically on the point of sentence enhancement, after providing the appellants a proper opportunity of being heard in accordance with Section 401(2) of the CrPC (or Section 369 of the BNSS, if applicable to new proceedings). The High Court was directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.