Criminal appeal against conviction must be heard on merits; sentence alone cannot be considered on a concession over conviction.

A criminal appeal against conviction must be examined on merits, and the appellate court must independently consider the challenge to conviction before addressing sentence. Acceptance of a concession that the conviction is not disputed does not justify confining the hearing only to punishment, because the court remains bound to satisfy itself about the correctness of the conviction. The statutory scheme does not permit disposal of such an appeal on the basis of plea bargaining or a routine concession by counsel. The High Court's approach of limiting the matter to sentence alone was therefore not legally sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a criminal appeal against conviction can be disposed of by accepting a concession that the conviction is not challenged and by confining the hearing only to the question of sentence.

Analysis: The statutory scheme governing criminal appeals requires the appellate court to examine the appeal on merits. A convicted person is entitled to have the challenge to conviction considered independently, and the court must satisfy itself about the correctness of the conviction before dealing with sentence. Acceptance of a concession on conviction without such examination is impermissible, and the appellate court cannot dispose of the matter on the basis of plea bargaining or a routine concession by counsel.

Conclusion: The appeal could not have been confined to sentence alone, and the High Court's approach was not legally sustainable.

---