RAJENDRAPAUL RAMASARAN DASS SHARMA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 23-02-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

548 
RAJENDRAPAUL RAMASARAN DASS SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ' 
February .23, 1973 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, l. D. DUA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Whether High Court should give a. :Jpeaking order in dismissing •1n 
appeal or merely disniiss the appeal in limine. 
The appellant was running a Octroi Cleari,ing Agency at 
'Mulund 
Check-Post' in th,e State of Maharashtra. 
He used to attend to certain 
transactions of Montgomery Transport Co. also. 
On 
December 
16, 
1968, a truck of the said transport co~pany arfived at the Check-Post 
with a machine to be delivered to M/IS. Imperial 
Tobacco 
Co. 
The 
appellant i.nformed the Manager of the Transport Company to arrange 
for the payment of Octroi whii:::h amounted to mor_e than Rs. 8,000/-. 
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 8,1961- was han~ed over to the appe1lant 
in the J.'resence of the Driver of the truck. 
It was found 
out 
after 
investigation that the receipt for the payment of Octroi held by 
the 
Imperial Tobacco Co. was not genuine a.00 on a complaint lodged by 
the Company, the- appe11ant \Vas arrested and committed for trial to 
the Court Of Sessions, under S. 467, 471 read With S. 467 and S. 420 
of J.P .C. 
The Trial Court convicted the appellant for an offence under s. 471 
read with s. 467 I. P. C. and for an offe;rn::e under s. 420 I. P. C. 
The 
appeal to the High Court was dismissed 
in 
limine 
with 
the 
word 
"dismissed". The _point raised before this Court was whether the High 
Court was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine with 
one 
word 
"dismissed'', without making a speaking order indicating 
the 
reason-; 
for dismissal. 
Remand~ng the cas.e to the High Court for re~headng. 
HELD : (i) The importance of the opinion of the High Court on 
arguable points requiring consideration in appeal in that Court 
when · 
questions of fact or law are open to challenge by the 
appellant . was 
emphasised more than 20 years ago by this Court in Mustaq Hussain 
v. The State of Bombay, [1953] S.C.R. 809. 
Sinoo then, in a series 
of decision~ this Court has consistently drawn the attention 
of the 
High c·ourts to the desirability of giving an indiCation of their views 
on .,t~e points . raised in ~rguable cases in ac<:ordait< 
with 
the 
legal 
position enunciated by .this Court. 
[552-AB.] 
(ii) In K. TS:. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1973 
S.C. 
243 
it was reiterated that . reason~ before the High Court for dismissing the 
appeal, if recorded, would be a valuable assistance to this Court 
in 
finally dismissing of the appeal 
on 
merits. 
Another 
advantage 
of 
recording . iucb reasons is that the accused-appellant, who 
may 
not 
always be present in the court, would have ,the satisfaction of knowing 
from the judgment that the points appropriately arising for cQooidera-
tion in· his case, were actually argued and duly considered by this High 
Court while dismis!ling .his appeal. In the present 
case, 
since 
the· 
High Court did not record its reasons for dismissing the appeal, this 
ceurt has no option but to remaJl(! the case to the High Court for 
rehearing and deciding the appeal after considering the points raised and 
recording its reasons in accordanee with law. [S52FG&553AJ 
A 
c 
D 
I· 
F 
G 
H 
A 
n 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAJBNDRAPAiJL v. STATE (Dua, J,) 
SU 
Mustaq Husmin v. State of Bombay, [19S3] S.C.R. 
809, 
iind 
K. K. lain v. State of Maharashtra, A.LR. 1973 S.C. 243, 
refet-
kd to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRisDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
264 of 1972. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 6, 1972 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in Cr. A. 
No. 164 of 1972. 
M. N. Sharma, for the appellant. 
S. B, Wad and Rine Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUA, J .-The appellant in this appeal by special leave was 
tried in the court of Session for Greater Bombay !ft Bombay for 
offences under s. 467, under s. 471 read withs. 467 and under s. 
420, I.P.C. Accordiilg to the prosecution the appellant was running 
an octroi clearing agency under the name and style of "National 
Octroi Clearing Agency" at the Mulund check-post. He used to 
attend to certain transactions relating to the transport companies, 
one of those companies being the Montgomery Transport Com· 
pany. On December 16, 1962 a truck belonging to the said trans-
port company bearing no. MPR 2147 arrived at the check-post 
carrying a Depleix Machine to be delivered to Messrs Imperial 
Tobacco Company. There we

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