LexMANGILAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MANGILAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. APRIL 27, 1994 B [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CT. ANDS. MOHAN, J.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 386-Appeal against con- viction-Hearing of-Lawyers' strike during-Absence of /awye,-JJismissal of appeal for non-prosecution-Validity of-High Court's observation as :o C reasons for strike and comments on lawyers' conduct in relation to strike-Jus- tification of Judicial process-Decision making-Judgr-Need to avaid personal prejudice. D During the hearing or appellants' appeal, against conviction under Sections 147 and 307 or the Indian Penal Code, their counsel were absent due to Lawyers' strike. The High Court dismissed the appeal for want or prosecution observing that there was no _justification in the lawyers' decisions to go on strike and the decision to strike obstructed the E judicial process. The appellant's application for restoration orthe appeal and to decide the same on merits was also dismissed by High Court. In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalr or the appellants that the High Court should have merely enquired into F justification or Lawyers' absence and it was not justified in examining the question as to what prompted the Advocates to go on strike and in commenting upon their conduct in relation to the strike. G Setting aside the High Court's order and directing the restoration or appeal to be heard on mtrits, this Court HELD : 1. The High Court has shown a lack or judicial restraint in adverting to and influenced by matters which were extraneous. It should not have embarked on the reason for the strike which was not the issue before it. The learned Judge should not have let out his bile H against the advocates who are free to hold any opinion as to the lapses 774 • l, ) \>fANGILAL v. STATEOFM.P. [MOHAN.JJ 775 committed by the then Chier Justice. Holding of such opinions can hardly A be characterised as an unruly attitude on the part of the advocates. Such holding or opinion, nor again, would either obstruct or disturb the judiciary. [777-H, 778-A-B, H, 779-A] Ramnaresh Yadav v. State of Bihm; A.l.R. (1987) S.C. 1500, cited. 2. A Judge must be of sterner stuff. His mental equipoise must always remain firm and undeflected. It is essential a judge should not allow his personal prejudice to go into the decision,making. [778-B-C] B R v. Bath Compensation Authority, (1925) 1 K.B. 685, referred to. C 3. A closed mind is antithetical to fair hearing. Prejudice tends to corrupt the ability to exercise independent judgment. It has a tendency to intrude upon a free mind and may influence the outcome. [778-D] Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia v. Franklin S. D Pollak, 343 US 451, 96 Law Ed. 1068, referred to. CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 298 ol 1994. E From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.93 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 117 of 1986. S.K. Gambhir and Yivek Gambhir for the Appellants. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F MOHAN, J. Leave granted. The appellants were tried before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 30· of 1985 for offences under Sections 147 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. On trial, G they were convicted and sentenced as per the judgment datod 23.1.86 as under :- Rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500 H 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R. A each, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1986 in the High Court. On 27.8.93 the appeal came up before D.M. Dharmad- hikari, J. It was adjourned since the lawyers at Jabalpur were o!l strike on B that day. Thereafter the matter was listed on 11.10.93. On that day also the lawyers were on strike. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the im- pugned judgment for want of prosecution. On 20.11.93 an application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was preferred for n;stora- tion of the appeal and to decide the same on merits. By an order dated C 26.11.93 the said application was dismissed. Hence, the special leave peti- tion. The learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the court should not have gone into the question as to what
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.