http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: ALIJAN NANHE PEHALWAN QURESHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/11/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. KOSHAL, A.D.

CITATION:  1981 AIR  645            1981 SCR  (1)1194  1981 SCC  (1) 415

ACT:      Procedure-High Court’s  judgment-In cases  where severe sentence had  been inflicted  by the trial court. High Court must give a reasoned judgment

HEADNOTE:      In so  serious a  crime as  murder where  so  severe  a sentence as  life imprisonment  has been  inflicted  by  the trial court  and the  appeal is  as of right, the High Court must indicate in a reasoned judgment that it has applied its mind to  the material  questions of fact and law. A judgment may be  brief but not a blank especially in a situation such as this. [1194 F-G]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1620 of 1980.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  13-11-1979 of  the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No 1310 of 1979.      Pramod Swarup for the Petitioner.      M. C. Bhandare and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.      The order of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER  J.-We were  not happy  at the disposal by the High  Court of  a case  under s.  302 I.P.C.  without  a speaking order.  After all  in so serious a crime as murder, where so  severe a  sentence as  life imprisonment  has been inflicted by  the trial court and the appeal is as of right, the High  Court must indicate in a reasoned judgment that it has applied  its mind  to the material questions of fact and law. A  judgment may be brief but not a blank, especially in a situation  such as  this. For  this reason  we should have straightaway set  aside the  judgment of  the High Court and sent it  back for fresh hearing, but under Article 136 where justice is  the paramount  consideration we wanted to reduce the delay  in the  proceedings since  there is a sentence of life imprisonment  on the petitioner so we directed that the original record  be sent  for so  that counsel on both sides may 1195 have the  opportunity to  peruse the entire case records and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

make   submissions to us as if we were hearing the appeal in the regular  course. Counsel have had that facility and have made submissions  after perusal  of the  materials. After  a brief hearing  counsel for  the  petitioner  was  unable  to demonstrate that  the trial court’s judgment was vitiated by any flaw  in  appreciation  of  evidence  or  assessment  of probabilities. We,  therefore,  dismiss  the  Special  Leave Petition after satisfying ourselves that natural justice has had its full play. Dismissed. P.B.R.                                   Petition dismissed. 1196