SANDEEP ALIAS KALA versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 16-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
468
SANDEEP ALIAS KALA
v.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 143 of 2018)
AUGUST 16, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Or. XXI, r.15–Supreme Court
(2nd Amendment) Rules,1981 – Supreme Court (Amendment)
Rules,1978 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or.XX, rr.5(1),21–
Constitution of India – Article 134(1)(a), (b) – Supreme Court
(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 – s.2(a)–
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.379 – Appeals u/Article
134(1)(a) or (b) or s.2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act,
modalities to be followed –Acquittal of the petitioner of the charge
of committing offences punishable u/s.302 r/w s.34, IPC was reversed
by High Court and he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life
– Conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner attained
finality following the dismissal of the appeal as well as the review
petition by Supreme Court – Present petition filed inter alia seeking
a declaration that the deletion of clause (c) & (d) from sub-rule (1)
of r.15 of Or. XXI of the 1966 Rules was contrary to the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench inSita Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh
reported as [1979] 2 SCR 1085– Held: The primary reason for
deleting the provisions of r.15(1)(c) of Or.XXI was that the sub-
rule, as it was framed, envisaged that certain categories of appeals
would be put up for hearing ex parte when it was open to the Court
to either dismiss summarily or, as the case may be, direct the issuance
of notice – In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Sita
Ram case that the issuance of a notice must follow, the Full Court
decided to delete r.15(1)(c) of Or.XXI – The 1966 Rules have since
given way to the 2013 Rules –Or.XX thereof contains provisions with
respect to the procedure for preliminary hearing of certain categories
of criminal appeals before Supreme Court – r.5(1) of Or. XX indicates
the categories of appeals which, on being registered, shall be put
up for hearing ex parte but does not cover appeals falling u/Article
134(1)(a) or (b) or s.2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act –
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 468
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
Hence, and even otherwise as a matter of precept, the principles
laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram case must govern
the procedure to be followed while disposing of appeals u/Article
134(1)(a) or (b) or s.2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act –
Ordinarily in all such appeals, notice must be issued – While
disposing of the appeal, it is only appropriate and proper that the
Court must record reasons– The object and intendment of the
deletion of r.15(1)(c) of Or. XXI of the 1966 Rules was to ensure
that such appeals are not disposed of summarily ex parte without
the issuance of a notice – The deletion must be so construed as to
give effect to the fundamental postulate underlying the judgment of
the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram case–Further, the deletion of a
provision in the 2013 Rules akin to r.15(1)(c) of Or.XXI of the 1966
Rules should not be interpreted to confer an uncharted discretion
to dismiss an appeal of that description summarily at an ex parte
hearing without the issuance of a notice – Principles propounded
in Sita Ram continue to hold effect and guide preliminary hearing
of certain categories of criminal appeals u/Or.XX, including Or.XX,
r.21 of the 2013 Rules – In the present case, the appealfiled by the
petitioner u/s.2(a) of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act r/w s.379,
CrPC was listed before Supreme Court for a preliminary hearing
and was dismissed in limine– The judgment dismissing the appeal
does not evidently furnish reasons – The difficulty in granting any
relief to the petitioner in these proceedings is that an appeal having
been dismissed on the judicial side and a review having been since
dismissed against that judgment, it would not be open for this Court
while exercising jurisdiction u/Article 32 of the Constitution to issue
any contrary direction – Petitioner at liberty to pursue the remedies
available in law – Principles of Natural Justice – Constitution of
India – Article 21.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In Sita Ram, the constitutional validity of Rule
15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the 1966 Rules and Section 384 CrPC
was called into question. Justice Krishna Iyer, speaking for a
majority of three learned Judges of the Constitution Bench,
upheld the validity of

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