Can a prior summary dismissal of an appeal prevent the accused from invoking the statutory right to be heard before a sentence enhancement in the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose an individual is arrested after the investigating agency files an FIR alleging possession of a prohibited alcoholic beverage in contravention of a state prohibition law; the magistrate convicts the accused, imposes a short term of imprisonment until the rising of the court and levies a monetary fine, and subsequently the State moves to enhance the sentence by invoking the provisions that allow a higher punishment for repeat offences.

The accused is taken into custody, the prosecution presents the seized bottle as primary evidence, and the complainant – a senior official of the prohibition department – testifies that the possession occurred in a public place known for illicit sales. The magistrate, after hearing the prosecution, records a conviction and orders the fine. Within a few weeks, the State files a notice under the criminal procedure code, informing the accused that it intends to seek an enhanced sentence on the ground that the offence is a repeat violation, as per the statutory scheme governing prohibited intoxicants.

At the same time, the accused had earlier filed an appeal against the conviction in the district court, which was summarily dismissed without a full hearing on the merits. The summary dismissal was recorded as an order of dismissal rather than a substantive judgment on the conviction itself. When the notice of enhancement arrives, the accused faces a procedural dilemma: the ordinary route of appealing the conviction is no longer available because the earlier appeal has been disposed of, and the State’s move to increase the punishment threatens to impose a harsher penalty without giving the accused a fresh opportunity to be heard on the conviction.

The legal problem that emerges is whether the accused can invoke the special statutory right conferred by the non‑obstante clause of Section 439(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code to show cause against the conviction itself, despite the prior summary dismissal of the appeal. The question is whether the dismissal of the appeal constitutes a final judgment that bars the exercise of the Section 439(6) right, or whether the statutory provision operates independently, allowing the accused to challenge the conviction when a notice for enhancement is served.

An ordinary factual defence – such as arguing that the evidence is weak or that the possession was inadvertent – does not address the procedural barrier created by the earlier dismissal. The accused needs a remedy that specifically targets the procedural defect of being denied a hearing on the conviction at the stage when the State seeks to augment the sentence. The appropriate remedy, therefore, is to file a petition invoking Section 439(6) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking to be heard on the validity of the conviction before any enhancement can be effected.

To pursue this remedy, the accused engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who drafts a petition under Section 439(6), outlining the factual background, the service of the notice for enhancement, and the prior summary dismissal of the appeal. The petition argues that the statutory right to show cause is a standalone right that is not extinguished by the earlier order, and it requests that the High Court stay the enhancement proceedings and entertain a hearing on the conviction itself.

The petition must satisfy two procedural prerequisites: first, proof that a notice under Section 439(2) has been duly served on the accused, and second, a demonstration that the earlier dismissal was an order, not a substantive judgment on the conviction. The petitioner attaches copies of the notice, the original FIR, the magistrate’s order of conviction, and the order of dismissal of the appeal, thereby establishing the factual matrix required for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 439(6).

In seeking relief, the accused asks the Punjab and Haryana High Court to quash the notice of enhancement, to stay any further sentencing proceedings, and to grant an opportunity to be heard on the conviction itself. The relief sought includes a direction that the State either withdraw the enhancement application or, if it persists, that the High Court conduct a full hearing on the merits of the conviction before any alteration of the sentence can be entertained.

Jurisprudence from the apex court has clarified that the non‑obstante clause in Section 439(6) creates a distinct statutory right that operates “notwithstanding anything contained in this section.” This principle means that the finality provisions, which normally bar revisiting a conviction after a final judgment, do not apply when the State initiates a sentence‑enhancement proceeding and serves the requisite notice. Consequently, the High Court is empowered to entertain the petition and to ensure that the accused’s liberty is not curtailed without a proper hearing.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court is the proper forum because revisions for enhancement of sentence fall within its jurisdiction under the criminal procedure code. The High Court’s power to entertain a petition under Section 439(6) is distinct from its power to entertain ordinary revisions or appeals; it is a specialized remedy designed to protect the accused when the State seeks to impose a harsher punishment after a conviction has already been recorded.

Strategically, the filing of the petition must precede any order of enhancement issued by the trial court. If the State proceeds to enhance the sentence without first addressing the Section 439(6) petition, the High Court can later set aside the enhancement as ultra vires. Moreover, the petition should request that the trial court be directed to refrain from taking any further step in the enhancement process until the High Court has disposed of the petition, thereby preserving the status quo and preventing irreversible prejudice.

In sum, the fictional scenario mirrors a real procedural conundrum: an accused whose appeal has been summarily dismissed faces a State‑initiated enhancement of sentence. The ordinary defence does not remedy the procedural denial of a hearing on the conviction. The correct procedural solution is to file a petition under Section 439(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking to invoke the statutory right to show cause against the conviction, stay the enhancement, and obtain a full hearing on the merits of the original conviction.

Question: Does the prior summary dismissal of the appeal constitute a final judgment that bars the accused from invoking the statutory right to show cause against the conviction when the State serves a notice for sentence enhancement?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused was convicted by a magistrate for possession of a prohibited alcoholic beverage, appealed the conviction, and saw that appeal summarily dismissed as an order rather than a substantive judgment on the merits. The legal problem pivots on whether that dismissal triggers the finality rule that would preclude the exercise of the non‑obstante clause embedded in the provision granting a convicted person the right to be heard before any enhancement of punishment. The jurisprudence cited in the fictional scenario indicates that an order of dismissal, issued under the procedural mechanism for summary disposal, is distinct from a judgment that resolves the conviction itself. Consequently, the finality bar does not attach, and the statutory right remains alive so long as a notice under the enhancement provision has been served. The procedural consequence is that the accused may file a petition invoking the right to show cause, even though the appeal route is exhausted. Practically, this means the accused can seek a stay of the enhancement proceedings and demand a hearing on the validity of the original conviction, thereby preventing the State from imposing a harsher sentence without due process. The involvement of a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is essential to frame the petition precisely, highlighting the nature of the prior dismissal as an order and arguing that the statutory right operates independently of any earlier adjudication. If the court accepts this reasoning, the accused retains a procedural safeguard, whereas a contrary finding would leave the accused vulnerable to an automatic enhancement, undermining the principle of fair hearing.

Question: What legal effect does the service of a notice for sentence enhancement have on the status of the conviction and the accused’s right to be heard?

Answer: Under the factual scenario, the State, after the magistrate’s conviction, served a formal notice indicating its intention to seek a higher punishment on the ground of repeat offence. The legal effect of that notice is two‑fold. First, it triggers the procedural safeguard embedded in the provision that obliges the State to obtain the accused’s consent or, at the very least, to give the accused an opportunity to be heard before any alteration of the sentence. Second, the notice transforms the conviction from a static determination into a dynamic proceeding where the State’s request for enhancement becomes a distinct application that cannot proceed in a vacuum. The legal problem, therefore, is whether the notice alone suffices to revive the accused’s right to challenge the conviction, even though the appeal has been dismissed. Jurisprudence suggests that the notice creates a statutory prerequisite for a hearing, and the non‑obstante clause expressly preserves the accused’s right to show cause notwithstanding any other procedural bar. The procedural consequence is that the accused may move the High Court for a stay of the enhancement proceedings until the hearing on the conviction is completed. Practically, this prevents the State from unilaterally imposing a harsher penalty and ensures that the accused’s liberty is not curtailed without a proper adjudicative process. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the notice is the trigger for the statutory right, and that any proceeding beyond the notice without a hearing would be ultra vires, thereby safeguarding the accused’s procedural rights.

Question: Does the Punjab and Haryana High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition invoking the right to show cause before any enhancement order is passed, and what is the basis for such jurisdiction?

Answer: The factual backdrop places the petition in the hands of the Punjab and Haryana High Court because the enhancement of sentence falls within the ambit of revisionary jurisdiction conferred by the criminal procedure code. The legal problem centers on whether the High Court can entertain a petition that seeks to stay the enhancement process and compel a hearing on the conviction itself, even though the trial court has not yet issued an order of enhancement. Jurisprudence from the apex court clarifies that the High Court’s revisionary power extends to any application for alteration of a sentence, and that the statutory provision allowing a convicted person to show cause is a distinct remedy that the High Court must entertain. The procedural consequence is that the High Court can issue a temporary injunction or stay, thereby preserving the status quo until the petition is decided. Practically, this jurisdiction prevents the State from bypassing the hearing requirement and ensures that the accused’s procedural safeguards are respected. The involvement of lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court is crucial to articulate the jurisdictional basis, citing precedent that the High Court’s power to entertain such petitions is independent of any pending enhancement order. If the High Court accepts jurisdiction, it can order the trial court to refrain from proceeding with the enhancement until the petition is resolved, thereby protecting the accused from an unreviewed increase in punishment. Conversely, a denial of jurisdiction would leave the accused exposed to an automatic enhancement, undermining the protective intent of the statutory scheme.

Question: What procedural steps must the accused follow to preserve the right to be heard and obtain a stay of the enhancement proceedings?

Answer: The factual scenario requires the accused to act promptly upon receipt of the notice for enhancement. The first procedural step is to file a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court invoking the statutory right to show cause, explicitly referencing the notice as the trigger for the hearing requirement. The petition must be accompanied by documentary evidence, including the original FIR, the magistrate’s conviction order, the summary dismissal order of the appeal, and a copy of the enhancement notice. The second step is to request an interim relief, typically a stay of the enhancement proceedings, on the ground that proceeding without a hearing would violate the statutory safeguard. The petition should also seek a direction that the trial court refrain from taking any further step until the High Court decides the matter. The legal problem is whether the High Court will grant such interim relief, given the urgency and the potential prejudice to the accused. The procedural consequence of obtaining a stay is that the State’s enhancement application is frozen, preserving the accused’s current sentence and preventing irreversible prejudice. Practically, the accused, through a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, must also be prepared to argue that the prior dismissal was an order, not a judgment, and that the non‑obstante clause operates independently of any finality rule. If the High Court grants the stay, the accused will then have a full hearing on the merits of the conviction, providing an opportunity to challenge the evidence and the legal basis of the conviction before any sentence alteration is considered.

Question: What are the possible outcomes of the petition and their practical implications for both the accused and the State?

Answer: The petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court can lead to several distinct outcomes. The most favorable outcome for the accused is that the High Court grants a stay of the enhancement proceedings and orders a full hearing on the conviction, thereby preserving the status quo and allowing the accused to contest the evidence, the alleged repeat offence, and any procedural irregularities. This would mean the State cannot impose a harsher penalty until the hearing concludes, safeguarding the accused’s liberty and ensuring due process. A second possible outcome is that the High Court declines to stay the enhancement but still entertains the substantive petition, directing that the State’s application for a higher sentence be heard alongside the petition’s arguments. In this scenario, the accused faces the risk of an enhanced sentence but retains the opportunity to argue against it before a final order is issued. A third, less favorable outcome is that the High Court dismisses the petition on the ground that the prior dismissal constitutes a final judgment, thereby allowing the State to proceed with the enhancement unimpeded. This would result in the accused receiving a higher punishment without a fresh hearing, potentially violating the protective intent of the statutory scheme. Practically, each outcome shapes the subsequent litigation strategy: a stay encourages the accused to prepare a robust defence, a partial hearing requires simultaneous defence against the enhancement, and dismissal may compel the accused to seek further relief through a revision or a writ petition. The role of a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is pivotal in framing the arguments, presenting the documentary record, and navigating the procedural intricacies to secure the most protective outcome for the accused while ensuring that the State’s actions remain within the bounds of law.

Question: Why does the Punjab and Haryana High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition that seeks to invoke the statutory right to be heard before the State can enhance the sentence, given the factual matrix of the arrest, conviction, summary dismissal of the appeal and the notice of enhancement?

Answer: The factual backdrop shows that the accused was convicted by a magistrate for possession of a prohibited alcoholic beverage, the conviction was affirmed by a summary dismissal of an appeal in the district court, and subsequently the State served a notice indicating its intention to increase the punishment on the ground of a repeat offence. Under the criminal procedural framework, any proceeding that seeks to alter the quantum of punishment after a conviction falls within the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court’s power to entertain such revisions is not limited to ordinary appeals but expressly includes proceedings where the State moves to enhance a sentence, provided that a notice has been served on the convicted person. Because the notice has been served, the statutory scheme triggers a distinct procedural safeguard that allows the accused to show cause against the conviction itself, irrespective of any prior final order. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, being the apex court of the state, possesses the authority to entertain this special petition because it is the only forum empowered to grant a stay on the enhancement and to order a hearing on the merits of the conviction before any alteration of the sentence. Moreover, the High Court’s jurisdiction is territorial; the offence occurred within the state’s jurisdiction, and the investigating agency and trial court are located there. Consequently, the petition must be filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition is drafted in compliance with the High Court’s rules of practice, that the requisite annexures such as the notice, the FIR, the conviction order and the summary dismissal order are properly indexed, and that the petition is presented before the appropriate bench that handles criminal revisions. A competent counsel will also be able to argue that the non‑obstante clause in the relevant provision creates a standalone right that the High Court must protect, thereby anchoring the jurisdictional basis of the petition.

Question: How does the prior summary dismissal of the appeal affect the accused’s ability to challenge the conviction, and why is a purely factual defence insufficient at this procedural stage?

Answer: The summary dismissal of the appeal is a procedural order that terminates the appellate route without a substantive examination of the merits of the conviction. This creates a procedural barrier because, under the finality principle, once an appeal is dismissed the conviction is deemed final for the purposes of ordinary appeals. However, the statutory provision that mandates a hearing before any enhancement of sentence operates independently of that finality rule. The accused therefore cannot rely solely on a factual defence—such as disputing the authenticity of the seized bottle or claiming inadvertent possession—because the core issue before the High Court is not the truth of the allegations but whether the procedural safeguard of a hearing before enhancement has been denied. The factual defence addresses the substantive guilt or innocence, which is a matter for the trial court; the High Court’s jurisdiction in this petition is limited to ensuring that the procedural right to be heard, as conferred by the non‑obstante clause, is respected. If the accused were to rely only on factual arguments, the High Court would likely deem the petition premature, as it would be seeking to re‑litigate the merits without first establishing that the procedural defect exists. Moreover, the State’s notice of enhancement triggers a statutory requirement that the accused be given an opportunity to show cause; failure to comply with that requirement renders any subsequent enhancement ultra vires. Therefore, the remedy must focus on the procedural defect—namely, the denial of a hearing—rather than on factual innocence. Engaging lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can be advantageous if the accused wishes to explore parallel remedies such as a bail application or a writ of habeas corpus, but for the specific challenge to the enhancement, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is essential to frame the petition around the procedural breach and to seek a stay pending a full hearing.

Question: What are the precise procedural steps the accused must follow to file the petition, and why is it prudent to retain a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court to assist with ancillary matters?

Answer: The procedural roadmap begins with the receipt of the notice of enhancement, which must be verified for proper service. The accused then prepares a petition invoking the statutory right to be heard before any alteration of the sentence. The petition must contain a concise statement of facts, the legal basis for the relief, and a prayer for a stay of the enhancement proceedings. It must be accompanied by annexures: a copy of the FIR, the magistrate’s conviction order, the order of summary dismissal of the appeal, and the notice of enhancement. The petition is filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the filing fee is paid as per the High Court’s schedule. After filing, the petitioner must serve a copy of the petition on the State’s counsel and on the investigating agency, ensuring compliance with the rules of service. The High Court will then list the petition for hearing, during which the petitioner may seek an interim order to maintain the status quo. Throughout this process, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is indispensable for drafting the petition, ensuring compliance with procedural formalities, and arguing before the bench. Simultaneously, the accused may face custodial issues, such as the risk of being taken into custody for the enhancement hearing. In such circumstances, retaining a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can be prudent to file a bail application or a writ of habeas corpus in the local jurisdiction, thereby addressing immediate liberty concerns while the main petition proceeds in the High Court. This dual representation ensures that the accused’s rights are protected on both procedural fronts: the High Court handles the substantive challenge to the enhancement, and the Chandigarh High Court addresses any urgent custodial matters, preventing the accused from being detained without a hearing on the procedural defect.

Question: What interim reliefs can the Punjab and Haryana High Court grant to safeguard the accused’s liberty while the petition is pending, and how do these orders interact with the State’s enhancement proceedings?

Answer: Upon receipt of the petition, the High Court may issue an interim order that stays the enhancement proceedings until the petition is finally decided. Such a stay prevents the trial court from issuing any order that increases the term of imprisonment or the fine, thereby preserving the status quo and ensuring that the accused is not subjected to a harsher punishment without a hearing. The court may also direct the investigating agency to refrain from taking any further steps, such as filing a supplementary charge sheet, that could prejudice the petition. In addition, the High Court can order the release of the accused on bail, provided that the bail conditions are satisfied, because the enhancement of sentence is not yet operative. This bail order is separate from any bail that may have been granted earlier and is tailored to the specific procedural context of the enhancement. The court may further direct that the accused be allowed to remain out of custody while the petition is being heard, which mitigates the risk of undue hardship. These interim orders are binding on the State; any attempt by the State to proceed with the enhancement in violation of the stay would constitute contempt of court. Moreover, the orders provide the accused with a meaningful opportunity to prepare a defence to the procedural issue, rather than being forced to endure an enhanced sentence without recourse. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is essential to draft precise applications for interim relief, to argue for bail, and to ensure that the court’s directions are effectively communicated to the trial court and the investigating agency. If the accused is detained in the interim, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can assist with a separate bail application or a writ petition to secure release, thereby complementing the High Court’s protective orders.

Question: What procedural risk does the prior summary dismissal pose to invoking the non‑obstante right, and how can a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court mitigate that risk?

Answer: The earlier summary dismissal creates a twofold procedural hazard. First, it may be interpreted by the trial court as a final adjudication of the conviction, thereby triggering the finality principle that ordinarily bars any further challenge to the judgment. Second, the dismissal order, being an order rather than a substantive judgment on the merits, can be misconstrued as a waiver of the statutory right to show cause under the non‑obstante provision, especially if the record does not clearly indicate that the appeal was disposed of without a merits hearing. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must therefore begin by securing a certified copy of the dismissal order and any accompanying minutes that demonstrate the lack of a substantive finding on the conviction. The counsel should prepare a detailed affidavit stating that the order was procedural, that the conviction remains legally operative, and that the notice for enhancement has been served, thereby satisfying the two conditions required for the non‑obstante right. In addition, the lawyer should file a preliminary objection in the petition emphasizing that the dismissal does not constitute a final judgment within the meaning of the finality principle, citing precedent that distinguishes orders of dismissal from judgments on conviction. To reinforce the argument, the counsel can attach the magistrate’s original conviction order and the fine assessment, showing that the conviction has not been set aside. By framing the petition around the statutory language that the right to show cause operates “notwithstanding anything contained in this section,” the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can neutralize the risk that the summary dismissal will be treated as a bar, and persuade the bench to recognize the independent nature of the non‑obstante provision.

Question: Which documents and evidentiary material should be compiled to establish that the notice for enhancement was properly served and that the conviction remains open to challenge, and how should lawyers in Chandigarh High Court prioritize them?

Answer: The evidentiary foundation must consist of the original FIR, the magistrate’s conviction order, the fine assessment, the notice issued under the enhancement provision, and the order of summary dismissal of the earlier appeal. Each document should be authenticated and accompanied by a certified copy of the docket entry showing the date of service of the notice, because the statutory requirement of service is a threshold condition for the non‑obstante right. In addition, the counsel should obtain the receipt signed by the accused or a witness attesting to the delivery of the notice, as well as any postal or courier tracking records that confirm the date and manner of service. The petition should also include a copy of the complainant’s testimony, the seized bottle, and the chain‑of‑custody log, to demonstrate that the conviction rests on material evidence that has not been contested. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court must prioritize the service proof, because without it the High Court cannot entertain the petition, and then attach the conviction order to show that the judgment remains operative. The dismissal order should follow, with a brief explanatory note highlighting that it is an order of dismissal and not a judgment on the merits. Finally, the petition should annex a sworn statement from the accused confirming that he remains in custody and has not been afforded a hearing on the conviction since the notice was served. By arranging the documents in chronological order and emphasizing the service proof, the counsel can streamline the High Court’s review and reduce the chance of a procedural dismissal.

Question: How does the custody status of the accused affect the timing and urgency of filing the petition, and what strategic steps should a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court take to protect liberty pending High Court relief?

Answer: The accused remains in custody after the conviction, and the State’s intention to enhance the sentence creates an imminent threat of a longer period of incarceration. Because the enhancement can be effected by the trial court without a hearing if the petition is not filed, the urgency is heightened. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must therefore file the petition without delay, ideally within the statutory period prescribed for showing cause, to invoke the protective umbrella of the non‑obstante right. Simultaneously, the counsel should move an interim application for a stay of the enhancement proceedings, arguing that the accused’s liberty is at stake and that the High Court’s jurisdiction to stay the lower court’s action is well established. The interim application should be supported by an affidavit detailing the current custody conditions, the date of notice service, and the lack of any hearing on the conviction. In parallel, the lawyer should request that the trial court be directed to maintain the status quo, meaning that the accused continues to serve only the original short term until the High Court decides the petition. If the trial court proceeds regardless, the counsel must be prepared to file a revision or contempt application to enforce the stay. Additionally, the lawyer should explore the possibility of seeking a personal bond for bail, emphasizing that the accused has not been convicted of a violent offence and that the primary issue is procedural, not substantive guilt. By combining a swift petition, an interim stay, and a bail application, the lawyer can maximize the chances of preserving the accused’s liberty while the High Court examines the merits of the non‑obstante claim.

Question: What arguments can be raised regarding the credibility and relevance of the complainant’s testimony about public place possession, and how might that influence the High Court’s assessment of the conviction’s validity?

Answer: The complainant, a senior official of the prohibition department, testified that the possession occurred in a public area known for illicit sales. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can challenge both the credibility and the probative value of that testimony. First, the counsel can point out that the complainant’s position creates a potential bias, as the official may have an institutional interest in demonstrating enforcement success, which could affect the impartiality of the statement. Second, the testimony lacks direct observation; the official did not personally witness the accused handling the bottle, but merely relied on a report from subordinate officers, which weakens the evidentiary weight. Third, the location described as a “public place known for illicit sales” is a generalized assertion that does not establish that the accused was engaged in a prohibited act at that moment, merely that the area is a hotspot. The lawyer can argue that the prosecution’s case hinges on the seized bottle, and that the complainant’s narrative does not add any factual element beyond what is already on record. By highlighting these deficiencies, the counsel can persuade the High Court that the conviction may have been predicated on a tenuous factual foundation, thereby strengthening the argument that the conviction itself warrants a fresh hearing under the non‑obstante provision. Moreover, the lawyer can request that the High Court examine the chain‑of‑custody of the bottle and any forensic analysis, if any, to determine whether the evidence conclusively links the accused to the prohibited liquor. If the High Court finds that the conviction rests on weak or unreliable testimony, it may be more inclined to grant a stay of the enhancement and order a full rehearing on the merits of the conviction.

Question: In the context of possible State retaliation through expedited enhancement, what procedural safeguards and interim relief can be sought, and how should lawyers in Chandigarh High Court structure the petition to secure a stay and a hearing on the conviction?

Answer: Anticipating that the State may attempt to accelerate the enhancement to pre‑empt the petition, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must embed multiple safeguards within the filing. The petition should open with a concise statement of facts, emphasizing that the notice for enhancement has been served and that the accused has not been afforded a hearing on the conviction, thereby triggering the statutory right to show cause. Next, the counsel must specifically pray for a temporary injunction restraining the trial court from proceeding with any sentencing enhancement until the High Court decides the petition. The prayer should be supported by an affidavit detailing the imminent risk of a longer imprisonment, the current custody status, and the lack of a merits hearing. Additionally, the petition should request that the trial court be directed to maintain the original short term of imprisonment, if any, and to refrain from imposing any additional fine or punitive measure. To bolster the request, the lawyer should attach the service proof of the notice, the conviction order, and the dismissal order, establishing that the procedural prerequisites for the non‑obstante right are satisfied. The petition should also include a clause seeking that the High Court appoint a senior judge to hear the matter expeditiously, given the liberty interests involved. By framing the relief as both a stay and a directive for a full hearing, the counsel demonstrates that the petition is not a mere delay tactic but a necessary step to protect constitutional rights. Finally, the lawyer should anticipate any State objection by pre‑emptively arguing that the non‑obstante provision operates independently of finality rules, and that denying the stay would amount to an unlawful deprivation of liberty without due process. This comprehensive structure maximizes the likelihood that the High Court will grant interim relief and schedule a substantive hearing on the conviction.