MUSTAQ AHMED MOHED HUSSAIN MUKHTAR HUSSAIN ALI HUSSAIN versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 670 · Decided: 13-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

670 
MUSTAQ AHMED MOHED HUSSAIN 
MUKHTAR HUSSAIN ALI HUSSAIN 
v. 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT 
March 13, 1973 
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, 1. D. DUA AND C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure s. 421-Power of l(igh Court to 'dismiss 
appeal in limine-When may be exercisted-Higl] Court 
must 
record 
reasons and it is not sufficient to sa,v 'dis1nissed'. 
Jn this appeal by special leave the short question requiring deter-
mination was whether the High Court of Gujarat 
was 
justified 
in 
dismissing in limine with one word 'dismissed' the appellants' · appeal 
against their conviction by the Sessions Judge, Jam~gar for offences 
under s. 420 read with ss. 511 and 34, I.P.C. and under s. 474 read 
with s. 34, JJ!dian Penal Code, 
Allowing the appcal, 
HELD: Section 421 Cr.P.C. no doubt empowers 
the 
appellate 
court to dismiss the appeal summarily but before doing so it is bound 
to peruse with care and attention the. petition of appeal and the copy 
of the judgment or order appealed against. The order . of SUlllIOOry 
dismissal can be passed only if the court considers that there is no 
sufficient ground for interference. This conclusion has to be arrived · 
at judicially after a proper scrutiny of the 
petition of appeal 
and 
the impugned judgirumt or order. 
[673G] 
The power of dismissing appeals in limine should be exe'rdsed spar-
ingly and with judicious caution so that no case raising arguable points, 
\Vhether of law or of fact requiring re-appraisal of evidence, goes with-
out requisite scrutiny. The 
requireme;at 
of 
recording 
reasons 
for 
summary dismissal. however concise, serves to ensure proper function-
ing of the judicial process. 
Reasons are, therefore. advisedly required 
by the decisions of this Court to be given for rejecting 
an 
appeal 
summarily under s. 421 Cr. P. C. 
[6740] 
The contention that when the trial court records a well 
reasoned 
judgment, then, even though arguable points on the 
question 
of the 
credibility of witnesses are raised, it is unnecessary for the court of 
appeal to deal with all these points and record Its own 
reasons 
for 
agreeing with the conclusions of the trial 
oourt, 
was 
unacceptable. 
Unless the challC!llge can be held to be prima facie unimpressive and 
unarguable the High Coun would be well-advised to go into the points 
canvassed a'1C) record· 'its reasons. Such a Course would be in accord 
with the st itutorv intendment, and also of assistance to this Court in 
more satisf: ctorilv dealing with appeals under Art. 136 of the Cqnsti-
tution. 
[6770] 
In the present case the trial court's judgment mentioned 
several 
di.scTepancies in the prosecution evidence. 
The 
appetlant.s 
were 
not 
unjustified in claiming to have the evidence on the record re-examined 
by the Hi~h Court for coming to its own 
conclusions. 
The 
points 
raised in the petition of appeal could' by no means 
be 
said to be 
unarguable. 
A 
B 
c 
[) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MUSTAQ AHMED v. GUJARAT (Dua, J.) 
671 
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the Court 
sent the case back to the High Court for a fresh \l<cision in the fight 
of this Court's obe,ei'vation. 
U. /, S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 94, 
Queen 
Empress v. Ram Narain & anr., l.L.R. 8 All. 514, Mohamad Ayub 
Abbas Raut v. The State of Maharashtra, Crl. A. No. 145 
of 
1961 
decided on March 2.5, 1963, Mushtak HusMlin v. The Stale of Bomba,y, 
[1953) S.C.R. 809, Bhagat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Cr!. A. No. 38 
of 1969 decided on September 17, 1969, Shankar Beldar v. The State 
of MahGrashtra, Or:!. A. No. 95 of 1969 decided on September 18, 
1969, K. K. lain v. State of Maharashtra A.LR. 1973 
S.C. 243, 
/iwan Prakash v. State of Milharashtra, A.LR. 
1973 
S.C. 
278, 
Shaikh Mohd. Ali v. State of Maharashtra, [1972] 2 S.C.C. 184 end 
Rajertdrapaul Ran=aran Dass Sharma v. The State 
of 
Maharashtra, 
Cr!. Appeal No. 264 of 1972 decided on Febh!ary 
23, 
1973, 
re-
ferred to. 
· 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
9 of 1973. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
July 31, 1972 of the Gujarat High Court in Cr. Appeal No."596 
of 1972. 
K. K. Sinha and S; K. Sinha, for the appellants. 
Urmila Kapoor, B. D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for the res-
pondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DuA, J.-In this appeal by special leave the short question 
requiring determination is whether the High Court of Gujarat was 
justified in dism

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