LexSURYA BAKSH SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 452 A SURYA BAKSH SINGH B v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No.1680 of 2013) OCTOBER 07, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] Criminal Trial - Remedy of appeal - Manipulation and misuse of, by convicts - Wilful withdrawal of the convict from c cippellate proceedings - Convicts taking recourse to the remedy of appeal with the objective of defeating the ends of justice by obtaining orders of bail or exemption from surrender, and thereupon escaping beyond the reach of the /c:iw - Held: This species of appeals should be consciously 0 dismissed on the ground of occasioning a gross abuse of the judicial process and an annihilation of justice - However, necessity of distinguishing dismissal of appeals in instances where steps have been taken by the Court for securing the presence of the appellant by coercive means on the one hand, E ;;ind those where the appellant may incidentally and unwittingly be absent when his appeal is called on for hearing.}_ Bounden duty cast upon the Judge not merely to ensure that an innocent person is not punished but equally not to become a mute spectator to the spectacle of convict circumventing his F conviction - It is necessary for the High Court confronted with the absence of the convict as well as his counsel to immediately proceed against the person who stood surety for bail - If this exercise fails to locate and bring forth convict, the Appellate Court is empowered uls. 482 Cr.P. C. to dismiss tl1e appeal without consideration on merits - In such cases, G none of the sections in Chapter XXIX Cr. P. C. dealing with ;;1ppeals, precludes or dissuades the Court from dismissing ;;1ppeals - Inherent powers of the High Court, poignantly preserved in s.482 CrPC, can be pressed into service but with H 452 SURYA BAKSH SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR 453 PRADESH care, caution and circumspection - In the present case, the A High Court while affirming the conviction of appellant had considered the case in all its complexities - It had manifestly discussed the evidence that was led, and finding it of probative value, came to the conclusion that the conviction was above appellate reproach correction and interference - The High B Court was not duty-bound to appoint an amicus curiae - No fault in the approach of the High Court which had duly undertaken the curial responsibility fastened upon the Appellate Court - However, since request for remand is rejected, and since appellant-convict was not represented c through counsel before the High Court, it is proper to permit the appellant an opportunity to argue appeal before the Supreme Court on merits- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Abuse of Court. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Inherent D powers of the High Court under - Discussed. Criminal Trial - Appeal - Non appearance of convict- appellant or his counsel - High Court decided the appeal ex- parte - Contention that the High Court _was duty-bound to E 'appoint an amicus curiae - Held: Not legally sound. In the instant criminal appeal, the issue pertaining to wilful withdrawal of the convict from the appellate proceedings initiated by him after he had succeeded in gaining his enlargement on bail or exemption from surrender, came up for consideration. F The contention on behalf of the convict-appellant was that a miscarriage of justice had occurred since the appellant had not been served with notice of the appeal G by the High Court, which decided the appeal ex parte and affirmed his conviction. It was contended by the appellant that the High Court was duty-bound to appoint an amicus curiae. H 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A Clranting leave and directing that the case be listed for Final hearing, the Court HELD:1.1. An ever increasing number of convicts are taking recourse to the remedy of appeal with the objective 8 of defeating the ends of justice by obtaining orders of bail 1:>r exemption from surrender, and thereupon escape beyo1nd the reach of the law. Jural compulsions now dict;1te that this species of appeals should be consciously dismissed on the ground of occasioning a C gross abuse of the judicial process and an annihilation of justice. The need to punish every transgressor of the ,law is ubiquitously accepted in all legal persuasions throughout the ages. [Para 1] [460-F-G] ·1.2. However, it is necessary to distinguish dismissal D of appeals in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.