MUNIR SAYED IBNA HUSSAIN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 12-11-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
---· 
• 
687 
MUNIR SAYED IBNA HUSSAIN 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
November 12, 1975 
[M. H. BEG AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Sec. 421 uf Criminal Procedure Code-Practice of High Court in dismissing 
criminal appeals wit/lout giving ll/JY rec.sons disapproved-Power of High Court 
/.0 dismiss a criminal appeal in limine. 
The appellant an owner of a hotel was prosecuted along with five others 
for forcibly dispossessing the complainant who was the M:tnager of the Hotel 
and further for misappropriating certain properties inCluding some money be· 
longing to the complainant. According to the appellant, the complainant was 
merely a licensee. The Trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 3 to 6 and con-
victed accused No. 1 and 2. 
The High Court admitted the appeal of accused 
No. 2 and acquitted him. The appeal of the appellant accused No. 1 was, 
however, rejected by the High Court in limine without giving any reasons for 
the rejection. 
On an appeal by Special Leave, 
c 
HELD : 1. There is a whole catena of cases which have come up to this 
Court from the Bombay High Court in which this Court has consistently dis-
D 
approved oi' the practice followed by the Bombay High Court of not giving 
reasons when exercising its power of summary dismissal of criminal apPeals 
which lie both on questioJlS of fact and law. In other High Courts such appeals 
are automatical!y admitted. The power of summary rejection 
under 
section 
421 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be only exercised when the Court 
is satisfied from n perusal of the judgment as well as the record that there is 
absolutely no reasonable possibility of its success for reasons to be mentioned 
in the order of dismissal. In the present case, it cannot be said that there are 
E 
no arguable points. It is difficult to believe tliat the judgments of this Court 
have neither come to the knowledge of the Bombay High Court nor were cited 
on behalf of' the appellant. In any case, the law haviQg been declared by this 
Court. it is the duty of the Bombay High Court to act in accordance with Article 
I 41 of the Constitution and to apply it by giving proper reasons to justify whatever 
be its view. 
The judgment of the Bombay High Court was set aside and it was 
directed that the case should be treated as admitted for regular hearing in the 
Bombay High Court .and should be disposed of in accordance with law. [688-C, 
E, F, G, H 689-AB] 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 191 
of 1971. 
· 
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the 
Bombay High Court dated 25-2-1972 in criminal appeal No. 683 of 
1971.) 
MI s. M. K. Ramamurthi & Co. for the appellant. 
M. N. Shroff and Vineet Kumar, for the respondents. 
The Judgni.ent of the Court was delivered by 
G 
BEG, J. The allegations, on questions of fact raised in the appeal now 
before us, were quite unusual. The judgment of a Division Bench of 
H 
the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 1971, in res-
pect of coaccused Syed Ali Naki Hade Hasan, who was acquitted on 
25-2-1972, shows the nature of the allegations made by the prosecutor 
B. 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 197 6] 2 S.C~R. 
in this case. On those allegations, it became necessary to consider 
whether the ~ccused, w130 had been put on trial together with six others, 
was actually m possession of a Hotel. The appellant claimed to be the 
owner of a hotel of which Jagannath, complainant, was said to be the 
11?anager. 
The case of the Manager was that he had been forcefully 
dispossessed by the accused and that certain properties ·belonging to 
him and others, including some money, were. mis-appropriated by the 
accused. Therefore, the appellant and five others were charged under 
Section 395 Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 452 read with 
Section 34 LP.C. According to the accused, Shri Jagannath and his 
brother, the complainant, were only licensees. However, these are ques-
tions relating to the merits of a case in which the Trial Court had ac-
quitted accusrd numbers 3 to 8 and the High Court acquitted accused 
No. 2. The appeal of the only remaining accused, accused No. 1, who 
is the appellant before us by special leave was, however, rejected in 
limine by the High Court without giving any reasons for the rejection. 
There is a whole ca.tena of cases which have come up here from the 
Bombay High Court in which this Court has consistently disapproved 
of the practice followed by the Bombay High 

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