•
349
STAiE OF KARNATAKA
v.
SURENDER KOTIANKAR
August 13. 1984
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND RANGANATH MISRA JJ .] .
Constitution of India, ·Article 136-Discretion ; of the Court ·10 grant
Special Leave to Appeal fn criminal proceedings-Whether in the absence of
A
ll
-~ecessary pdpers giving full facts, the Co.1rt m:1y refuse leave . '
C
,.
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XXT.....:...Special Leave Petitions in
Crim!nal proceedings must contain ned;Ssar~ papers giving full f~cts.
lo the petitions for special leave to appeal in criminal proceedings,
t~e petitioner annexed only a copy of the judgment _or the High court but
D
di(foot file any papers, such as, copies of the charge-sheets or the judgment
of the Trial Court which could give full picture of the facts.
Dismissing the petitions,
.HELD.: 1. The Supreme Court in the exercise or its jurisdiction under
.
.
Article 136 may not propose to proceed Further in the matter in which the
petitioner has not chosen to. file any papers in the court apart from the
judgment or the High Court.
Therefore, in the instant case, the Court
will not be justified in issuing a show cause notice to the respondent when
no attempt has been made to place :\II the facts beFore it by
filing tho
necessary documents. [3 50C-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURiSDJCTION
\Cr!.) Nos. 1288 to 1301of1983 .
Special Leave Petition
E
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 31st January, 1983 of
G
the Karnataka High Court in Cr!. Appeal Nos. 461 to 474 of 1981.
K.L. Sharma and M. Veerappa for the petitioner.
The Order of the Court mas delivered by
H
A
B
c
D
350
SUPUlll! COURT REPORTS
(1985] l s.c.a.·
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.
On pleas of guilty, the respondent
was convicted of several charges under Sections 408 and 477 A and
sentenced in each case, by, the Trial Magistrate, to suffer imprison-
ment till the rising of the Court and a fine of either Rs. 50 or Rs.
100. The State prefered appeals to the High Court for enhance·
ment of the sentences. The appeals were dismissed on the ground
that the accused was a young man who had already been pumshed
sufficiently by the loss of his job and also in view of the circumstance
that more than ten years had elapsed since the date of offence.
We
are prima facie satisfied that the sentences are inadequate and that
the lenient senten'ces are the result of misplaced sympatby.
We do
not however propose to proceed further in the matter in the exercise
of our jurisdiction under Article 136 as the State of Karnataka who
is the petitioner before us bas not chosen to file any papers before
us apart from the judgment of the High Court. The least that the
petitioner could have done to give us a full picture of the facts was
to file copies of the charge·sheets and the charges and copies of the
judgments of the Trial Court in the different cases.
We do not
think that we will be justified in issuing a show-cause notice to the
respondents when no attempt has been made to place all the facts
before us by filing the necessary documents. Apparently there is
no purposefulness in the filing of these petitions.
They are accor·
dingly dismissed.
M.L.A.
Petitions dismissed.
•
•
-
..
Lex