Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1248 of 1999
PETITIONER:
VIJAYENDRA KUMAR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/11/2004
BENCH:
B.P. SINGH & ARUN KUMAR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
B.P.Singh, J.
We have heard counsel for the parties.
In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order
of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 21 May, 1999 in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 1989
.
The learned judge of the High Court affirmed the judgment and order of the Special Judge,
C.B.I. Dated 4th February, 1989 in Special Case No.11/1982 whereby the appellant was found
guilty of the offence under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to one
year rigorous imprisonment under Section 477A IPC. Though it affirmed the conviction for the
offences under Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1957, no separate sentence was passed.
We have gone through the judgment of the High Court as also the judgment of the
trial court. We find that in the judgment of the High Court, there is hardly any discussion
of the
evidence on record. This Court has consistently observed that an appeal against an order of
conviction preferred by an accused, must be considered by the appellate court, both on quest
ions
of law and questions of fact. While the High Court has the power to dismiss a criminal appe
al
summarily, that power must be exercised only in a case where there is no arguable question o
f
fact or law.
Having gone through the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, we find
that the matter requires deeper consideration. This is not one of those cases where the Hig
h
Court could have simply affirmed the findings of the trial court without recording reasons.
The High Court has observed that the trial court had gone into all details of oral and
documentary evidence adduced in the case and it found that the conclusions drawn on the basi
s
thereof were absolutely correct and, therefore, the High Court did not feel the need to dis
cuss
oral and documentary evidence on record, which may only result in repetition. In our view
this
approach is perverse.
In fact, counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to paragraphs 23 and 24 of the
judgment of the trial court and argued that the findings recorded by the trial court cannot
be
sustained. We do not wish to consider this submission urged before us, in view of the order
, that
we propose to pass, lest it may prejudice the case of the parties.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
We are firmly of the view that this is an appeal which requires to be considered by
the High Court in detail and the points involved require a close scrutiny of the oral and
documentary evidence on record.
In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh hearing by a judge other than th
e
judge, who decided this appeal.
This Court granted bail to the appellant. He shall continue on bail till the dispo
sal
of the appeal by the High Court.
Since the matter is an old one, we request the High Court to dispose it of as early
as
possible.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.