HARJINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 16-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 326 
HARJINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1536 of 2010) 
AUGUST 16, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
C 
ss. 385 and 386 - Procedure for hearing appeals and 
power of appellate court - Appeal against conviction -
Appellant in jail - Counsel engaged absented himself on the 
date of hearing - None heard on behalf of appellant - High 
Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of 10 years RI and 
o a fine of Rs. 1 lakh - HELD: In view of the legal position with 
regard to disposal of the appeals with reference to ss. 385-
386 and taking note of the special circumstances that the 
appellant was behind the bar and had no opporlunity to make 
alternative arrangement, the impugned judgment set aside 
E and matter remitted to High Coult for disposal of the appeal 
afresh and expeditiously after affording opporlunity to both 
sides, particularly, to the appellant, as he is in jail -
Conclusion emerging from Bani Singh's case as regards 
ss. 385 and 386, culled out - Practice and Procedure -
F Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
Bani Singh. VS. State of U.P. 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247 = 
1996 (4) sec 720 - relied on 
Shyam Deo Pandey .vs. State of Bihar (1971) Suppl. 
G 
SCR 133 = 1971 (1) SCC 855; and Ram Naresh Yadav vs. 
H 
State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 1500 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247 
326 
relied on 
para 5 
HARJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
327 
(1971) Suppl. SCR 133 
AIR 1987 SC 1500 
referred to 
para 5 
referred to 
para 5 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1536 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.08.2008 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No. 1440-
SB of 2001. 
Mukesh K. Verma, Ashwani Bhardwaj for the Appellant. 
Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
Leave granted. 
Heard both sides. 
ORDER 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The main grievance of the appellant is that his counsel was 
absent and not heard any one on his behalf by the High Court 
E 
when his appeal was disposed of finally on 19th August, 2008. 
The impugned order also shows that none appeared for the 
appellant whereas the State was represented by the Deputy 
Advocate General. 
F 
The appellant-accused has filed Criminal appeal No. 1440-
SB of 2001 before the High Court against the conviction and 
sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act imposed by the Special Court, Hoshiarpur. The 
Special Court senten6ed him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment G 
and imposed a fine a Rs. 1 lakh. Though the High Court has 
considered the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, 
considering the fact that the appellant-accused was behind the 
bar and could not make alternative arrangement and the Court 
has also not arranged ~a counsel at the State expense and in 
H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
view of sentence, i.e. 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a 
fine of Rs. 1 lakh, we intend to give one more opportunity to 
the appellant-accused to put forth his case through a lawyer in 
the High Court. 
B 
It is usef\,11 to refer a three Judge Bench decision of this 
Court in Bani Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP. , (1996) 4 SCC 
720. The question that was posed before the three Judge 
Bench was that where the accused-appellant is represented 
by a pleader and latter fails to app;.;ar when the appeal is called 
on for hearing, is the appellate Court empowered to dispose 
C 
of the appeal after perusing the recqrd on its own or, must it 
adjourn the appeal to a future date and intimate the accused 
to be present on the next date of hearing? After finding 
difference of opinion in Shyam Deo Pandey vs. State of Bihar, 
(1971) 1 SCC 855 and Ram Naresh Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 
D AIR 1987 SC 1500, the matter was referred to a large Bench. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The following conclusions emerge from the said decision is : 
(i) 
The plain language of Sections 385-386 
does not contemplate dismissal of the 
appeal for non-prosecution simplicitor. On 
the contrary, the Code envisages disposal 
of the appeal on merits after perusal and 
scrutiny of the record. 
(ii) 
Even in the absence of lawyer, the Court is 
. competent to dispose of the appeal but only 
on perusing the record and after 
appreciation of grounds raised. 
(iii) 
Even in the absence of a lawyer though the 
appellate Court is competent to decide the 
appeal on mer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.