LexDAGADU versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
288
.DAGADU
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
. ·-··-·-~-··---
March 24, 1981
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, BAHARUL ISLAM AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, section 384 (section
421 of 1898 Code)
;.fl
-Powers of the High Court to reject appeal summarily-The lfigh Court should ·
ordinarily pass a 'speaking order'.
Although under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I 898 (which
is sectiofl 384 of the Code of. Criminal Prccedure, 1973) the High Court has
the undoubted power to summarily dismiss a first appeal against conviction of
an accused yet in very serious cases like those under section 302 Indian Penal
Code, or other cases where death or life irnprisoninent can be awarded, the
High Court should consider the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it
summarily, unless the evidence is so cle3r and cogent, reliable and creditworthy
-that on the face of it no case for the barest consideration is made out. Even
if the High Court chooses to dismiss the appeal summarily some brief reasons
should be giVen so as to_ enable the Supreme Court to judge whether or not
' the case requires any further examination. If no reasons are ·given then the ·
task of the Supreme Court becomes onerous in as much as the Judges have
to perform the function of the High Court itself by reappraising the entire
tv~c"<rce J{!l·tt:rg in fericus haras~rrcnt and expense to the accused.
[289 C, 290 CJ
Govinda Kadtuji Kadam and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, [1970] 1SCC469
and Sita Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P., [1979] 2 SCR 1085, followed •.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 313
of 1974.
r
G
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
23-7-1973 .of the Bombay.High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 759/73.
Harjinder Singh for the Appellant.
H
O.P. Rana.and R .. N. Podar for the Respondent.
DAGADU v. MAHARASHTRA (Fazal Ali, J.)
289
The Order of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J.
In this appeal by special leave the appellant
has been convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to imprisonment for life.
After having gone through the
judgment of the Sessions Judge and the grounds taken by the appel-
lant in his appeal by ,special leave we are satisfied that this case
does raise some arguable points which merit serious consideration by
the High Court. We would like to point out that although under
section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which is
section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the High
Court has the undoubted power to summarily dismiss a first appeal
against conviction of an accused yet in very serious cases like those
under section 302 Indian Penal Code, or other cases where death or
life imprisonment can be awarded, the High Court should consider
the appeal on men ts instead of dismissing it summarily, unless the
evidence is so clear and cogent, reliable and creditworthy that on
the face of it no case for the barest consideration is made out.
This Court in Govinda Kridtuji Kadom and Ors. v. State of Maha-
ras~trc;(') while laying down the guidelines for dismissing an appeal
summarily observed as follows :
"The summar.y decision is accordingly a judicial deci-
sion which vitally affects the convicted appellant and in
a fit case it is also open to challenge on appeal in this
Court. An order summarily dismissing an appeal by the
word 'rejected', as is tl'e case before us, though not vio-
lative of any statutory provision
removes nearly every
opportunity for detection of errors in the order.
Such an
order does not speak and is inscrutable giving no indication
,of the reasoning underlying it. It may at times embarrass
this Court when the order appealed against prima fade
gives rise to arguable points which this Court is required
to consider without having the benefit of the views of the
High Court on those points.
In our opinion, therefore,
when an appeal in the High Court raises a serious and
substantial point which is prima facie
arguable it is
improper for that Court to dismiss it summarily without
giving some indicat_ion of its view on the points raised."
To the same effect is the later decision of this Court in Sita Ram and
Ors. v. State of U.P.(2) where this Court reiterated as follows :
(I) (1971] I S.C.C. 469.
(2) (1979] 2 S.C.R. 1085.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 3 S.C.R.
"The order summarily dismissing an appeal by tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.