NARAYAN SWAMI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 26-10-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• lllARAYAN SWAMI 
v. 
STATE 01' MAHARASHTRA 
October 26, 1967 
JV. IlHARGAVA ASD C. A. VAIDIALI~GAM, JJ.) 
P:-actict..-fligli l:oto:1-·Cri111i.11al appeal r<1ising substantial and in1-
1purtant 
q11t'.'ilic>1L~-S111111n.:iry diJn1is.\a/ hy Jligh C.:011rr--lf justified. 
A 
B 
During the trial for an offence of dacoity one of the \\'itne~s 1!avc 
false cviUcncc. anJ stated, on further examination, that he did so at- the 
instance ot the Sub-inspctor .... -ho investigated the CiCJC. 
The Cou11 gave 
C 
notiet: to the Sub-inspector to show cause v.·hy a complaint should not 
be laid again'! him for otlcnce; under ss. 195, I 96 and 205 J.P.C. and 
he appcareJ und showed cause. 
After the trial, <1nd at the time of 
.delivering judgment in the dacoity 'case the Court found that the \\'itness 
had intentionally J?,iven false evidence and that the Sub-inspector had 
intcntioni.illy fahricated false evidence. and thereafter tiled a complaint 
against them before the Joint 
~fagislratc. They were committed to the 
D 
Sessions Courr to take their 1rial !or offences under ss. 195. 196 and 
.14 LP.C. a< fim and 'econd accused respectively. 
The" Sessions Judge 
found them guilty. 
The Sub-inspector (secood accused) appealed to 
the High Coun and contended that : (I ) the Sessions Judge had com· 
milled a gross illegalily in relying as against the second accused, upon 
the evidence Of the first accused as a v..·itness in the earlier dacoity case, 
and the statement of the fi"t accused under s. 342 Cr. P.C. before the 
Sessions Judge: und (2) the show cause notice was not sufficient com-
E 
pliance with the provisions of s. 479A, Cr. P.C. as the notice should 
have been given ufler the judgment in the dacoily case. The High Coun 
dismissed the appeal summarily in one v..·ord "dismissed', without 
dis-
cussing the questions of law an<l without considering v..·hethcr there \\·as 
guflkient other evidence to convict the appelJ.ant. 
Jn appeol by the Sub-inspector to 1his Court. 
HELD : The oppcal before the High Court, was an arguable one, 
and it also raised substantial and important questions for consideration 
by 1he High Court. The High Coun was therefore not justified 
in dis· 
mi5'in& the appeal summarily. {94C] 
Mu.1/1tak Hu.uei" v. State of Homhay. ( 1953) S.C.R. 
809 
Sliree!an· 
ti11h Ramayyt• M1111ipalli v. State of Ho111hav. (1955( I S.C.R. 1177 and 
Chittaranjan Dm v. Swe of West Be11f1a/, 11964) J S.C.R. 237, followed. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
165 of 1967. 
Appeal by spec:al leave from the order dated April 27, 1967 
of the Bombay High Courl, ·Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 
74 of 1967. 
W. S. Barli11g11y and A. G. Rm11aparkhi, for the appellant 
. H. R. Khamw and S. /'.Nayar, for the respondent. 
F 
G 
H 
.. 
, 
' ---
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
-F 
G 
H 
NARAYAN SWAMI v. MAHARASHTRA (Vaidialingam, 1.) 
89 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered. by 
Vaidialingam, J. 
The 
appellant, 
who was the. second 
accused, in Sessions·Case No. 9 of 1967, and accused No. 1, were 
found guilty, under s. 195 and s: 196 read with s. 34, I.P.C. and 
each of them has been convicted and sentenced to undergo three 
years' rigorous imprisonment, for these offences, and the sentences 
have. been directed to run concurrently. 
The case of the first 
accused, is not before us, in these proceedings. 
The appellant chalknged hls conviction and sentence, passed 
against him, before the High Court of Bombay, in Criminal 
Appeal No. 74 of 1967. A Division Bench of the High Court 
has, by its order dated April 27, 1967, summarily dismissed the 
appeal, in one word 'dismissed'. The appellant has come up, to 
this Court, by special leave. But this Court, by its order dated 
September 7, 1967, has granted special leav.e, limited to the 
question as . .to whether the High Court was justified in dismissing 
the appeal summarily. That is the only point, that arises for 
consideration, in this appeal. 
It is necessary, to set out briefly, the 
circumstanc~'S under 
which the appellant, who was a police Sub-Inspector, along with · 
one Dilawar, who was accused No. 1, came to be charged-sheeted 
and tried, in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1967. In connection with a 
dacoity, which is alleged to have taken place, on July 18, 1965, 
when the Bombay-Howrah Mail was stopped, at the outer signal 
of Nagpur Railway Station,one Ambadas and Deorao, and certain 
others, were prosecuted before the Additional Sessions Judge, 
Na~pur, in Sessions Ca

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