SIDDANNA APPARAO PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 06-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. ' 
A 
B 
c 
SIDDANNA APPARAO PATIL 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
·March 6, 1970 
[A. N. RAY AND l D. DuA, JJ.J 
909. 
Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898), s. 410-Appeal to Higb 
Court involving substantial and arguable questions-Appeal dis1nissed in 
in limine summarily-Propriety. 
The appellant and another were char&ed under s. 302 read with s. 34, 
I P.C. The second accused was acquitted but the appellant was convicted 
and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Court. In appeal 
to the High Court, the appellant raised various arguable and substantial 
questions of law and fact, but the High Court dismissed the appeal in 
li1nine summarily-Propriety, 
I appeal to this Court by special leave, 
D 
HELD : The order of dismissal of the appeal should be set aside and 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the matter remitted to tbe High Court for fresh consideration. [912 DJ 
The High Court has undoubtedly the power to dismiss summarily an 
appeal under s. 410 Cr. P.C .. but, it should not do so if the appeal 
raises arguable and substantial points. 
Further, in such appeals. the 
High Court should give reasons for the rejection of the appeal. [910 E; 
912 Cl 
Mushtak Hussain v. State of Bombay, [1953] S.C.R. 809, 
Govirtda 
Kadtuji Kadam & Ors. v. St>ate of Maharashtra, [1~70] 3 S.C.R. 525 and 
Chittaranjan Das v. State of West Bengal [1964] 3 S.C.R 237, followed. 
2n. followed. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal 
No. 180 of 1967. 
Appeal by special leav.e from the order .dated December 5, 
1966 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1444 
of 1966. 
The appellant did not appear. 
M. S. K. Sastri and s: /'. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment ol the Court was delivered by 
Ray, J. 
This is an appeal by special leave against the judg-
~en~ ~f t~e J:li~ Court of Bombay dated 5 December, 1966 
d1sm1ssmg m limme the appeal preferred against the judgment and 
order dated 16 August, 1966 passed by the Sessions Judge Shola-
pur. 
The High Court by an order datCd 3 April 
1967 also 
refused leave to appeal to this Court. 
' 
910 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 3 S.C.R. 
The appellant was accused No. I. 
He was convicted under 
section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 
sentenced· to imprisonment for life. 
Broadly stated, the charge against the appellant was that he 
in conspiracy with his brother, accused No. 2 committed murder 
A 
of Revansidhappa Shivappa Patil and Mahadeo Sidran Patil. 
The 
B 
defence of both the appellant and his brother was one of total 
denial. 
The right to prefer an appeal from sentence of Court of Ses-
sions is conferred by section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
· The right to appeal is one both on a matter of fact and a matter 
of J.aw. 
It is only in cases where there is a trial by jury that the 
C 
right to appeal is under section 418 confined only to a matter of 
law. 
This Court in several decisions dealt with section 410 of the 
Criminal Procedure Code and the rights of the appellant there-
under. Reference may be made to one of the earlier decisions of 
D 
this Court in Mushtak Hussain v. Tire State of Bombay(') and the 
recent decision in Govinda Kadtuji Kadam & Or.•.' v. 
State of 
Maharashtra(') where several previous decisions of this Court 
have been noticed. 
The following principles emerge from the decisions; first, the 
Appellate Court undoubtedly has power of summary dismissal; 
E 
secondly, if the appeal raises arguable and substantial points the 
High Court should give reasons for rejection of appeal; thirdly, 
rejection of an appeal by using only one word of dismissal causes 
difficulties and embarrassment in finding out the reasons which 
weighed with the High Court in dismissal of the appeal in limine; 
fourthly this Court in Chittaranjan Das v. State of West Bengal(') 
F 
held that the High Court should not summarily reject criminal 
appeals if they raise arguable and substantial points. 
As to what is an arguable and a substantial point may be illus-
trated with reference to a few decisions. 
In Nara.van Swami v. State of Maharashtra(') this Court stated 
G 
that a ground in preferring an appeal from the judgment of the 
Sessions Court that a gross illegality was committed in relying 
upon the evidence given by a co-accused in a dacoity case and 
using the answers given by him as a co-accused against the 
accused appellant would be a substantial question. 
Again it was 
noticed that denial of an opportunity to a:n appellant in a dac

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