LexSANKATHA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
SANKATHA SINGH
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(S. K. DAs, K. SUBBA RAo and RAGHUBAR
DAYAL, JJ.)
817
Criminal Procedure-Appellate Court's power to ~e-hear
appeal after having dismissed it earlier-Code of Criminal
l'rocedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), sa. 367, 369, 424.
The question for decision was whether a crimi?al
appellate court could order the re-hearing of an appeal which
it had earlier dismissed, when neither the. appellant< nor
their counsel appeared, holding that it h.ad perused t.he
record of the case and
saw no reason for interference with
the triaJ court's order.
Held, that the appellate court's omission to write a
detailed judgment in a criminal appeal in which neither the
appellant nor his counsel appeared might not be in compliance
with the provisions of s.367·of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and might be liable to be set aside by a superior court, but
'vill not give that court itself power to set it aside and re·hear
the appeal.
At the re-hearing of the appeal the successor of the
appellate court was competent to consider, on an objection
bei?g raised by the other party, whether the appeal was
vahdly up for hearing before him.
Section 369 read with s. 424 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure specifically prohibits the altering or reviewing of
its order by a court.
Inherent powers of the court cannot be exercised to do
what the Code specifically prohibits the court from doing.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 145 or 1959.
Appeal by special leiive from the judgment
and order dated March 19,1959, of the Allahabad
High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1299 of 1957.
8. P. Sinha and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
G. C. ,~fathur and C. P. Lal, for the respon-
dent.
1962. January 25.
The ,Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
1962
January 25.
Jt16Z
8...Uth• s i•th
v.
S1<1t1 •JU. P.
R•g,,.har Dayal J.
818
SUPRE~fE COURT REPORTS [l!l62) Sl'PP.
RAORUBAR DAYAL, J.-Sankatha Singh and
others appeal against the order of the All aha had
High Court diFmissing their application for revisrnn
of the order of the Sessions Judge, Gyanp ur,
holding the ordl'r of his predeceBSor for the re-
hearing of an appeal which had bPen dismissed
earlier to hi" ultra 1Jires and without jurisdiction and
directing the Magi8trate to take immediate steps
to l'Xecute thi> order passed by it, according to
law.
The appellants were convicted by the Magis-
trate, I Class, Gyanpur, of offences under ss. 452
and 323 read with s.34, I.P.C. Kharpattu, one of
the appellants, was also convicted of an offenco
under s. 324, ·J.P.C. They appealed against thrir
Ponviction.
The appPal was fixed for hearing on
XoYemher 30, 1956. On that <lat(', noilht'r t:1e
appellants nor their counsel appPared in Court and
the learned Sessions Judge dismissed thl' appeal.
The rel"'·ant portion of his order is :
"The appellants have beon absent, and
their learned counsel has also not appeared
to :uguc the appeal on behalf of the appel-
J.mts.
I have perused the judgment of the
learned Magistrate and seen the record. I
find no ground for any interference. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed."
On December J 7, 1956, an application was
presPntcd hy the appellsnts praying that the P.ase
he reston·d to its original numbor so that justico he
doirn to t h«m.
In expl11.ining their absence from
Court on thn <lato of hearing, it was said that they
reRchcd the Court somewhat lntc due to the Ekka,
by which they were travellin~" over· turning arci-
dontally on the way and, ru1 a result, lht>ir getting
injurit•s. This application was allowed, on July
2, I !l5i, hy the lcarne<l Sessions Judge, Sri Tej Pal
Singh, who had dismissed the appeal. His reasons
for allowing the application appear, from his orde1,
2 S.0-.lt.
SUPREME COURT REPor.·rs
819
to be that the apnlioation' supported by an affida-
vit, showed that there was sufficient cause for the
non-appearance of the appellants-accused at the
time of the hearing of the appeal, that s. 423 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the
Code) enjoined the appellate Court to dispose of
the appeal on merits after hearing the appellant or
his pleader and the Public Prosecutor, that no
notice was ever isAued to the appellants as required
bys. 422 of the Code, that s. 367 of the Code la.id
down what a judgment should contain and that his
judgment of November 30, 1956, amounted to no
judgment as iExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.