Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DHONDIBA GUNDU POMAJE & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1974
BENCH:
GOSWAMI, P.K.
BENCH:
GOSWAMI, P.K.
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
CITATION:
1976 AIR 1151 1975 SCR (2) 66
1976 SCC (1) 162
ACT:
Practice and Procedure-Criminal appeal to High Court-Summary
dismissal by High Court-Duty to give reasons.
HEADNOTE:
Inasmuch as under the Constitution any person aggrieved by
an order of the High Court can petition to the Supreme Court
under Art. 136 for special leave, it is necessary, having
regard to the long series of decisions beginning with [1953]
S.C.R. 809, which discourage the practice of dismissal by
the one word ’dismissed, that the High Court should give
some reasons why no arguable case is made out on a perusal
of the appeal petition and the judgment of the lower court.
In the absence of reasons. this Court can hold the dismissal
to be justified or allow the appeal only after sending for
the records, getting the paper books prepared, hearing the
parties and appreciating the evidence. This process
involves the Supreme Court being burdened with such appeals
and doing what the High Court should do. Further during
such avoidable delay the conviction person entertains a
doubt about his conviction and suffers anxiety. [66H-67D]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 325 of
1974.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 8th April, 1974 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. Appeal
No. 305 of 1974.
Sharad Manchar, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for the
appellants.
S. B. Wad and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-We have just now admitted the special
leave, petition and after the appeal was registered heard
the learned Advocates for the parties. This is yet another
case in which a criminal first appeal against a conviction
has been dismissed summarily under Section 421 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. We have heard both sides. Mr. Wad
for the State has strenuously contended that the High Court
has power to dismiss summarily and has cited several
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
decisions, but in all these cases there is nothing to the
contrary to justify a view different from the one we are
taking in this case. It is submitted that the dismissal,
was so summary that even the record was not called for. No
doubt, Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code does vest a
power in the High Court to dismiss an appeal summarily but
it can do so only on a perusal of the petition and the copy
of the judgment. Inasmuch as under our Constitution any
person aggrieved by an order of the High Court can petition
to this Court under Article 136 for special leave, it is not
only necessary but having regard to the long series of
decisions beginning as far back as 1953 (see 1953 SCR 809)
onwards which discourages this practice of dismissal by one
word ’dismissed’, the High Court should at least have given
some reasons
67
why no arguable case is made out on a perusal of those
documents. Since we are not in a position to ascertain and
it is contended before us that arguable points do arise in
this case in support of which the statement made in special
leave petition has been read to us, we are not in a position
to say that an arguable case does not arise. We would have
been able to do so even if we had the slightest inkling in
the order of the High Court. In the absence of any reasons
what has been happening in many cases is that special leave
is admitted, and after hearing the appeal if this Court has
come to the conclusion that the conviction is valid, it has
held that the dismissal by the High Court is justified. But
this method, in our view, reverses the process and imposes
unnecessary burden on this Court. What should have been
done by the High Court, is now being done by this Court. It
is only after sending for the records, getting the paper
books prepared, hearing both parties in the appeal and after
appreciation of the evidence that it may be held that in
some cases the dismissal, in fact, was ultimately justified.
In many cases the appeals were even allowed.
Long avoidable delay thus ensues during which the person
convicted entertains a doubt about his conviction and has to
suffer the anxiety caused thereby.
We do hope and trust that the series of decisions over this
long period disapproving of the practice of summarily
dismissing by one word will be taken note of and this Court
will not be ultimately burdened with such appeals arising
out of summary dismissals which is really the function of
the High Court at the first instance.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High
Court is set aside. The appeal is remanded to the High
Court for hearing for admission and disposal in accordance
with law and in the light of the directions made here in
above.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed.
68