SITA RAM & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1085 · Decided: 24-01-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
' ' 
SIT A RAM & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
January 24, 1979 
1085 
A 
(V. R. K!lISl!NA IYER, P. N. SHINGHAL, P. S. KAILASAM, D. A. DESAI 
B 
AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Supreme Comt Rules, 1966, Order XXL, Rule 15(J)(c), Constitution of 
Indt'a, 1950. Articles 134, 136, 145, Criminol Procedure Code, 1898, s. 384 
and Supreme Court (Enlargement of Crim/no/ 
Appellate Jurisdiction) 
Act, 
1970, J. 2(a)-Procedure of the Supreme Court hearing appeals in criminal 
.•nattrrs tll th1~ ad1ni.ssion stage ex·parte-Whetlu:r ultra vires. 
C 
1¥ords &. Fhrases-'Appeal' and procedure-Meaning of. 
Rule 15(1) (c) of Order XX! of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 envisages 
that the petition of appeal under sub-clause (al or sub-cl•use (b) of clause 
(1) of Art. 134 of the Constitution or under the Supreme Court (Enlargement 
of Criminal Appellate Jurisdictioo) Act, 1970 or under s. 379 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure 1973, on being registered shall be put up for hearing 
D 
ex-parte before the court which may either dismiss it 
summarily or direct 
issue of notice to au necessary parties or make such orders, as the circumstances 
of the case me.y require. 
The appellants in the appeal who were acquitted by the Sessions Court 
had been convicted and sentenced by the High Court and a\varded life im· 
prisonment under s. 302 read with s. 149 !PC. 
E 
When their appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement 
of 
Criminal 
Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 was listed for 
preliminary hearing under 
Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XX! of the Supreme Court Rules, 
1966 
it was 
contended ( 1) that the said provision empowering the court to dismiss the 
appeal summarily was ultra vires the Enlargement Act, 1970, (2) the power 
of the Supreme Court to frame rules under Art. 145 of the Constitution can-
not be extended to annul the rights conferred under an Act of Parliament 
nnd (3) that an appeal under the Enlargement Act, 1970 cannot be dismissed 
summarily without calling for the records, ordering notice to the State and 
without giving reasons. 
HELD: 
(Per Krishna Iyer. Shinghal & Desai, IJ.) 
l. Article 134(1) (c) 
spells 
a 
measure of seriousness 
because 
the 
High Court which has heard the case certifies that it involves questions of 
such moment that the Supreme Court itself must resolve them. To dispose 
of such a m2Uer by a preliminary hearing is to i:ast n refiect!on on the High 
Court's capacity to understand the seriousness of a certification. [109S D-E] 
F 
G 
2. ~ritcle 136 vests a plenary discretion in the Supreme Court to deign 
H 
or decline to grant leave to appeaJ against any conviction or sentence. Before 
deoiding to grant or reject such leave the court accords an oral hearing afttr 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979 J 2 s.c.a. 
perusing all the papers produced. Once leave is granted, the appeal is heard, 
after r.:oricc to the state, in full panoply. 
.-\.U~r leave, the appeal is bom. 
Then it ripens .into fullness and is disposed of when both sides are present. 
No appeal after leave, is dismissed summarily or ex-parte. If Art. 136 gives 
a discretionary power to grant leave to appeal or to dismiss in limine, after 
an cx-parte hearing (or efter issue of notice if the court so chooses), Art. 134 
which gives a constitutional right to appeal as it were, must stand 
on a 
higher footing lest the Constitution makers be held to have essayed in super· 
ercgation. [1095G-1096A] 
3. There is much more 'hearing' content in an absolute 
appeliate 
right 
than in a precarious 'special leave' motion. Jurisprudentially, a right is larger 
than a permission. Art 134 puts the momentous class of 
cases covered 
by 
it beyond the discretionary compass of Art. 136 and within the 
compulsory 
area of full hearing such as would follow upon leave being granted unde1 
Art. 135(1). A full hearing may not obligJle Jragging the opposite side to 
court involving expense and delay. Fullness of hearing of the 
proponent 
is 
not incompatible with non·hearing of the opponent when after 
appreciating 
all that could be urged in support of the cause there is no need felt to call 
upon the other side, as where the proposition is groundless, frivolous or not 
prima facie statable. 
[1096B·D] 
4. Article 134(2) empowers Parliament tO ·expand the jurisdiction of 
the 
Supreme Court to entertajn criminal appeals. In exercise 
of 
this 
power, 
Parliament enacted the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate 
Jurisdiction) Act, 1970

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