1983 JTR(SC) 223
1983 AIR(SC) 1014 ; 1983 AWC 817 ; 1984 1 BomCR(SC) 18 ; 1983 CriLR 444 ; 1983 2 Crimes(SC) 588 ; 1983 CrLJ 1497 ; 1984 MLJ(Cri) 645 ; 1983 2 RCR(Cri) 526 ; 1983 2 Scale 117 ; 1983 4 SCC 129 ; 1983 SCC(Cri) 786 ; 1983 3 SCR 651
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.
Shivaji Narayan Bachhav, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 1983,
D/- 18-8-1983.
Advocates appeared
S. N. Jha Amicus Curiae, for Appellant: M. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Respondent.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136, Art.141
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.384
(A) The appeal to the High Court was summarily dismissed with the one word diminished, which this Court held to be an abuse of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution read with Section 384 of the Cr. P. C. This Court emphasized that an appellate court must record reasons when dismissing an appeal in limine, and that summary dismissal without indicating consideration of the merits is inconsistent with procedural fairness. The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 136 to grant special leave is to be exercised with restraint, and the statutory power under Section 384 must be used sparingly and with circumspection, especially where a substantial sentence such as life imprisonment is imposed for a grave offence like murder.
(B) Key principles include: (i) an accused has a right of appeal against conviction and sentence; (ii) an appellate court may dismiss an appeal in limine under Section 384 Cr. P. C., but the power must be exercised sparingly and with great care; (iii) summary dismissal by the High Court must include reasoned orders indicating that the record was considered and that the questions at issue were addressed; (iv) Article 136 jurisdiction is not a mechanical exercise but requires careful scrutiny; (v) prolonged and unreasoned dismissal of appeals undermines the appellate system.
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal to the High Court was summarily dismissed with the one word diminished, prompting the filing of a special leave petition before this Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts summary dismissal was erroneous and without proper reasoning. The order failed to indicate whether the record was called for or whether the High Court addressed the questions at issue, thereby denying a meaningful appellate review.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in summarily dismissing the appeal in limine without recording reasons; whether the exercise of Article 136 jurisdiction was consistent with the principles laid down in prior cases; and whether such dismissal effectively negated the statutory right of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi:
An appellate court, even when exercising summary dismissal powers under Section 384 Cr. P. C., must record concise reasons to ensure judicial accountability and to respect the right of appeal guaranteed by law. Unreasoned summary dismissal by a High Court, particularly in a capital case attracting life imprisonment, warrants interference by this Court under Article 136.
Result:
The order of the High Court is set aside, and the appeal is allowed. The High Court is directed to admit the appeal and proceed to deal with it in accordance with law.
(A) The appeal to the High Court was summarily dismissed with the one word diminished, which this Court held to be an abuse of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution read with Section 384 of the Cr. P. C. This Court emphasized that an appellate court must record reasons when dismissing an appeal in limine, and that summary dismissal without indicating consideration of the merits is inconsistent with procedural fairness. The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 136 to grant special leave is to be exercised with restraint, and the statutory power under Section 384 must be used sparingly and with circumspection, especially where a substantial sentence such as life imprisonment is imposed for a grave offence like murder.
(B) Key principles include: (i) an accused has a right of appeal against conviction and sentence; (ii) an appellate court may dismiss an appeal in limine under Section 384 Cr. P. C., but the power must be exercised sparingly and with great care; (iii) summary dismissal by the High Court must include reasoned orders indicating that the record was considered and that the questions at issue were addressed; (iv) Article 136 jurisdiction is not a mechanical exercise but requires careful scrutiny; (v) prolonged and unreasoned dismissal of appeals undermines the appellate system.
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal to the High Court was summarily dismissed with the one word diminished, prompting the filing of a special leave petition before this Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts summary dismissal was erroneous and without proper reasoning. The order failed to indicate whether the record was called for or whether the High Court addressed the questions at issue, thereby denying a meaningful appellate review.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in summarily dismissing the appeal in limine without recording reasons; whether the exercise of Article 136 jurisdiction was consistent with the principles laid down in prior cases; and whether such dismissal effectively negated the statutory right of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi:
An appellate court, even when exercising summary dismissal powers under Section 384 Cr. P. C., must record concise reasons to ensure judicial accountability and to respect the right of appeal guaranteed by law. Unreasoned summary dismissal by a High Court, particularly in a capital case attracting life imprisonment, warrants interference by this Court under Article 136.
Result:
The order of the High Court is set aside, and the appeal is allowed. The High Court is directed to admit the appeal and proceed to deal with it in accordance with law.
Judgment
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:- Special leave granted.
2. The appeal of the accused to the High Court was dismissed summarily with the one word diminished placing this Court in a most embarrassing position in dealing with the special leave petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Such summary rejected of a peals by the High Court has been disapproved by this Court more than thirty years ago in Mushtaq Hussain v. State of Bombay 1953 SCR 809 (AM 1953 SC 282) and thereafter over the years in a series of cases from the same High Court : Ramayya v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 287. Vishwanath Shankar Baldar v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 3 SCC 883, Siddanna Appa Rao v. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1970 SC 977 Narayan Nathu Naik v. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1971 SC 1656. Govinda Kadtuji Kadam v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 1033. Shaik Mohamed Ali v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 43, K. K. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 243. Jeewan Prakash v. State of Maharashtra. AIR SC 278. Mushtaq Ahmed v. State of Gujarat. AIR 1973 SC 1222. Krishna Vithu Suroshe v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 274. Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1974 SC 791. Dagadu v. State of Maharashtra 1981 Cri LJ 724. We are pained and not a little perturbed, that despite the long series of judgments all arising from cases from the same High Court the High Court has not chosen to correct itself and continues in the error of its ways. Except in certain cases when an accused person has pleaded guilty and in petty cases every person convicted of an offence has a right of appeal under the Cr. P. C. An appeal may be both against conviction and sentence and on facts and law. A convicted person is entitled to ask an appellate Court to reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion. An appellate Court has the undoubted power to dismiss an appeal in limine. Section 384. of the Cr. P. C. provides for it. But it is a power which must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection. One would think a conviction for murder and a sentence of imprisonment for life as in the case before us, were serious enough matters for the High Court to warrant admission of the appeal and fair and independent consideration of the evidence by the High Court. Summary rejection of the Appeal with the laconic expression dismissed seems to be a drastic step in such cases. To so reject an appeal is to practically deny the right of appeal. We cannot also overemphasise the importance of the High Court making a peaking order when dismissing a Criminal Appeal in limine. "The requirement of recording reasons for summary dismissal however concise serves to ensure proper functioning of the judicial proess". There must be some indication that the High Court addressed itself to the questions at issue and had the record before it. In the present case there is not even an indication whether the record had been called for and whether it was before the Court. We have little option but to set aside the order of the High Court. The High Court may now admit the appeal and deal with it according to law.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1983 SC 1014