HANUMANT DASS versus VINAY KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 05-04-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
• 
! 
I 
' i 
' 
,\' 
• 
\"· 
·' 
S95 
A 
HANUMANT DASS 
•• 
VINAY KUMAR & ORS. 
, Apri~ 5, "1982 
I 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
' 
Party to an appeal against coNViction/acquittal-Necessary party-Occur-
rence of offence taking place in the te"itorial limits of_ one State, but' the trial 
C 
takeJ place in anather State, pursuant to an order ·of transfer by the Supreme 
Court-In the aPpeal by the accused before the High Court, which·is _ the necessary ,.... 
party respondent-Public Prosecutor of the State where the-offence 'took p/Oce or 
of the State __ where_ the trial took ·place-Code of Criminal ~Procedure, 1973, 
sections 2(4), 24_, 224, '178, 38S and 432(7), scope of. 
' 
. 
-
' 
. . 
-
Records, summanlng of-Whfther non-summoning of f.ecords ~itiates the 
order in appeal, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 section 385(2), exp/ained-
Setting aside OJ the judgment i.r not passible unless tM ingredients of section 465 
, Criminal Procedure Code are sati3fted • .-· 
· 
Vinay Kumar, the husband of the deceased Asha and his mother 
Chhano Devi were charged; convicted' for the offence of burning alive the 
deceased and sentenced to life ia:iprisonment on a complaint by Hanumant .Dass 
' the father of the deceased _and the 3.ppellant in Criminal Appeal 4S of 1982 by 
-the Sessions Judge. Gurdaspur, Punjab. ·The Offence is alleged -to have been 
Committed within th~· territorial limits or the State Of Himachal . Pradesh. but on 
an application of the complainant the case was transferred by an order Or the 
Supreme Court inasmuch as the accused were the brother-in-law· and ni.other-in- . 
law of a Judge. of the High Court of. Himachal Pradesh. lo appeal by the 
accused the High Court of Punjab issued. oa 22-6-1981, noiice for 6-7-1981 to the 
Advocate General of Punjab only aad on that date heard the appeal and acquit- · 
ted both the accused. Hence the appeal by the complainant and the special leave· 
by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 
· 
· 
Dismissing the appeal and tbC S~ci~l Leave Petition, the -Court, 
HELD : 1. The charge levelled against the High Court· that it 'was in 
D 
E 
F 
a bot ha.Ste to decide the appeal at the earJiest possible is incofrect in- view of the 
G 
order dated 22-6-1981 passed by the High Court of Punjab. (600 BJ 
. 
2:1. Section . 385 ·or . the ~de of -Crim~nal Pr~dur~ is a ~ndatorf 
provision·and the requirement of the section must be· satisfied. Jn the appeal 
before tho High Court -State of P.unjab was made a party and notice of the ~ 
appcafwas also given to the Advocate General of Punjab •. From sections 2(4). 
H 
24. 225. 378 and 432 it is tevident that there shall be a Public Prosecutor fOr -
-conducting an~ prosecution appeal or other proceedi:r;ig on behalf of the Central 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
·• 
596 
SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS 
· 11982) 3 s.c.il. 
Gove~nment or State GovCrnment in the High'eourt •. ~r notice h1s been given 
to the Public Prosecutor, namely, the Advocate-General of_ Punjab the require-_ 
ment of law has _been fulfilled. (601 Jl.C, 603 C-D] . 
-: 2:2. Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code: defines ••approptjate 
GoVem.me:Ot~' as meaning (a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, 
or the order referred to in sub-section (6) is passed under_ any law relating to a 
matter ·to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central 
Government;· (b) in other cases, the Government of the St3.te within which the 
offender iS sentenced or-tbC-said otder is passed.· -According to this section the 
appropriate Government is the Government of the State ·of conviction and not 
the Government of the State where the offence was Committed. L603 C-D] 
' 
State of Madhya Praduh v. Ratan Singh & Ors., (1976] Supp. S.C.R. 
SS:Z. applied. 
- 3. TO contend that the High Court disPOsed or the appeal CveD without 
sumt:D.onirig the ·record is incorrect. No specific allegation has been made ·in the 
Special Leave Petition that the. record waS not summonCd.~- The· tenor or_ 
the judgment of the High Court indicates that the record must have been there 
·before the High Court. There is copious reference to the materials On. the record 
which could be. possible only when the record· was there biefore the court. 
Bcsid.;:s, the counsel for the appellant made a statement before the- court that 
on the finding of fact recorded by the High Court he was entitled to an-· acquitial 
and in this view of the matter even if the record had not been summoned that 
w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.