LexSHIVAJI NARAYAN BACHHAV versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
-~
•
651
SHIVAJI NARAYAN BACHHAV
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
August 18, 1983
·(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E. $. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.j
Special Leave to appeal-Grant of in cases where the High Court summarily
· rejects the appeal against conviction ·and sentence in limine-Order XXI of the
Supreme Court Rules read with Arricle 136 of the Constitution-Exercising such
a power to dismiss an appeal in limine under
Sec~ion 384 .nf the Criminal
Procedure Code by the High Co14rf, would iantamount to denial of right of appeal .
The petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s 302 1.P.C. and sentenced
to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge. The appeal preferred. by him was
dismissed by the High Court of Bombay in limine. Hence the appeal by
A
B
c
Special leave.
D
Allowing the petition and directing the High Court to admit the app~al and
deal with it according to law, the court
HELD : An appellate Court has the undoubted power to dismiss an
appeal in limine, as provided under section 384 of thC Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure. But, it is a power which must ·be exercised sparingly and1with gieat
circun1spection, more so in a case where the conviction is for murder and the
sentence is one Qf imprisonment for life, which are serious enough \natters for
the High Court ~o warrant admission of the appeal an·d fair and independent
consideration of the-evidence by the High Court. Summary rejection of the
appeal with the laconic expression, "dismissed" is a drastic step in such cases.
[653 C.E)
To so reject an appeal is to practically deny the right of appeal. Except
in certain cases when an accused person has pleaded guilty and in petty cases,
. every person convicted of an offence has a right. of appeal under -the Code; an
appeal may be bqth against conviction and on facts and law. A cori.victed
person is entitled to ask an appellate Court to reappraise the evidence and
come to its own conclllsion. Therefore, it is necessary to make a speaking Order,
while dismissing a criminal appeal. (653 E-F]
·
Mustaq Hussain v. State of Bombay, [1953] S.C.R. 809; Ramayya v.
State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 287; Vishwanath Shankar Reidar v. State. of
Maharashtra, [1969J 3 S.C.C. 883; Siddanna Appa Rao v. State of Maharashtra
A.l.R. 1970 S.C. 977; Narayan Nathu Naik v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R'.
1971 S.C. 1656; Govinda Kadutji Kadam v. Slate of Maharashtra, A.J.R. 1970
§.<;:. 1033; Sha;k Moh~med AU v. State of Maha,rashtr~, A.I.R. 1973 S.<;:. 43;
E
F
G
H
[652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1983) 3 s.c .• R.
K. K Jainv. State'{Jf·/ofahrashtra, A.~.R. 1973 S.C. 243; Jeewan Prakash v.
A
State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 278; Mustaq Ahmed v. State of Ma!U>-
rashtra, A.LR. 1973 S.C. 1122; Krishna Vithu. Suros!ie v. State of Maharashtra,·
A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 274; Sampaia Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.
1974 S.C. 791; and Dagadu v.
St~te of Maharashtra, 1981 CrJ. L.J. 724;
reiterated.
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 386
c
of 1983.
from tjie Judgment and Order ~ated the 23rd June, 1981
of t)le High Court of )Jombay in Cr!. Appeal No. 1138 and 1144
of 1980.
S. N. Jha, A micus Curiae for the Appellant.
M, N. Shroff for the Respondent.
D
The Order of the Court was delivered by
E
F
. G
H
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special Leave Granted.
The appeal of the accused to -the High Court was _dismissed .
su111marily with the one word 'dismissed', placing this Court in a
most embarrassing position in dealing with the special leave petition
under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Such summary rejection of
appeals by the High Court has been disapproved by this Court more
than thirty years ago in M11shtaq Hussain v. State of Bombay(') and
therGl\f(er, over the years, in .a series of cases from the same High
Court : Ramayya v. State of Bombay('), Vishwanath Shankar Be/dar
v, $f!'te pf :Maharashtra(•), Siqdanna Appa Rao v. State. of Maha-
rashtra('). Narayan Nathu Naik v. State of Maharashtra('), Govinda
Kadutji Kadam v. Stale of Maharashtra('), Shaik Mohamed Ali v.
State of Maharashtra('), K. K. Jain v. State of Maharashtra(•), Jeewan
•
(1) [19531 S.C.R. 809.
(2) A.l.R. 1955 S.C. 287.
(3) (1969) 3 s.c.c. 883.
(4) A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 977.
(5) A. J.R. 1971S.C.1656.
(6) A.I.ll. 1970 S.C. !033.
(7) A.f.R. 1973 S.C. 43.
(8) A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 243,
SHIVAJI NARAYAN v. MAHARJ rn1RA ( CMnnoppa Reddy,J.
653
Prakash v. State of Maharashtra('), Mushtaq Ahmed v State of
. MahExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.