MAHENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 24-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

62 
MAHENDRA SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
April 24, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND l. D. DUA, JJ.] 
A 
Arms Act, 1959, Ss. 25(1)(a) and 27-Scop< of-Posussion of arms not for 
B 
onti-social purpvse-No licence-Sentence. 
Practice-High Court's power to di.~miss appeal sun1n1arily-Desirability of 
giving rea:rpn:r-Delay in final disposal of criminal appeals~Eflect of. 
On receipt of information the police searched the appellant's hou:iie on May 
14, 1968. 
In the central room of that house there was an almirah of which the 
key was produced by the appellant and handed over to the Inspector of Police. 
When the almirah was opened with the key it was found to contain a bag with 
C 
live cartridges and a gun. 
As no licence or permit for their possession was pro-
duced, the appellant was prosecuted and was convicted under Ss. 25(l){a) and 
27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 
two years R.I. 
His appeal to the High Court was dismissed summarily. Special 
leave to appeal to this Court was granted and the accused was on bail pending 
dispo•al of the appeal. 
HELD : ( 1) The High Court has the power to dismiss an appeal in limine 
where in its opinion there is no substance in the appeal. 
But in cases 
where 
D 
queStions of fact or law. which are arguable and which are not unsubstantial, are 
raised. it is desirable that the High Court, while dismissing summarily, should 
indicate broadly the reasons which prevailed with it. 
In such cases not only the 
reasons recorded by the High Court would be helpful to this Court in better 
understanding and appreciating the High Court's line of approach but it would 
nlso serve to assure the accused that the arguable points in his appeal have been 
properly argued and duly considered by the High Court. [64D-F] 
Mush1ak Hussain v. Bombay [19531 S.C.R. 809 and Mushtaq Ahmed Hussain 
E 
and Mukhtar Hussain Ali Hussain v. The State of Gui., Cr. A. No. 9 of 1973 de~ 
cided on !3-3-73 followed. 
(2) However, it is undesirable and unnecessary in the larger interests 
of 
justice to send the present case back to the High Court for re-decision. 
The 
appellant was convicted in June 1969 and the High Court's decision was shortly 
thereafter. 
TJndue delay in final disposal of criminal appeals tends to some ex-
tent to defeat the very puroosc of criminal justice. 
Speedy disposal of criminal 
cases for commission of offences promotes confidence of the society in the ad-
F 
ministration of criminal justice which is essential for sustaining the faith of the 
law-abiding members of the society in the effectiveness of the rule of law. It 
also saves the accused from avoidable harassment inherent in unreasonably pro~ 
longed trials and appeals. [64F-H; 65A-BJ 
(3) On the evidence oD. the record it is not possible to bold that the e::dstence 
of the arm<; in the almirah was without the appellant's knowledge and that his 
possession of the arms was unconscious. 
Therefore. 
his 
conviction 
under 
'· 25(l)(a) was justified. [65E-F] 
G 
( 4) There is no evidence in support of the conviction for the offence under 
~. 27, and therefore, his conviction under that section cannot be sustained. 
[65F:Gl 
(5) There is no evidence of any undesirable: antece~ent~ of the app~l!ant, 
and the poo;;o;;e<;sion of the arms has not been shown to be 1nsp1red by anv s1n1ster 
puroose. 
Since more th~n ~ y~ars bad elapsed si_nce ~he date of the offence it 
would be in the ends of 1ushce 1f the sentence of 1mpnsonment was reduced to 
that already undergone and a sent'ence of fine is imposed in addition. 
[65H; 
H 
66A-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 
1970. 
A 
c 
D 
E 
L 
'. 
F 
G 
H 
MAHENDRA SINGH v. WEST BENGAL (Dua, J.) 
63 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 
24, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 1969. 
I. N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
P. K. Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUA, J .-This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
order of summary dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the High Court 
of Calcutta from the judgment and order of a learned AJditional 
Sessions Judge, Asansol dated June 18, 1969 convicting the appellant 
for offences under ss. 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 
According to the prosecution case, on receipt of secret information, 
Inspector Kali Prasanna Chaudhury of Detective Department. along 
wi

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