http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: DAGADU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/03/1981

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1218            1981 SCR  (3) 288  1981 SCC  (2) 575        1981 SCALE  (1)575  CITATOR INFO :  F          1983 SC1014  (2)  R          1986 SC1070  (2)

ACT:      Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973, section 384 (section 421 of 1898 Code) -Powers of the High Court to reject appeal summarily-The High  Court should ordinarily pass a ’speaking order’.

HEADNOTE:      Although under  section 421  of the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure, 1898  (which  is  section  384  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure,  1973) the  High Court has the undoubted power to summarily dismiss a first appeal against conviction of an  accused yet  in very  serious cases  like those under section 302 Indian Penal Code, or other cases where death or life imprisonment  can be  awarded, the  High  Court  should consider the  appeal on  merits  instead  of  dismissing  it summarily, unless  the evidence  is  so  clear  and  cogent, reliable and creditworthy that on the face of it no case for the barest consideration is made out. Even if the High Court chooses to  dismiss the  appeal summarily some brief reasons should be  given so  as to enable the Supreme Court to judge whether or not the case requires any further examination. If no reasons  are given  then the  task of  the Supreme  Court becomes onerous in as much as the Judges have to perform the function of the High Court itself by reappraising the entire evidence resulting  in serious harassment and expense to the accused. [289 C, 290 C]      Govinda  Kadtuji   Kadam  and   Ors.  v.     State   of Maharashtra, [1970]  1 SCC  469 and Sita Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. [1979] 2 SCR 1085, followed.

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 313 of 1974.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated 23-7-1973  of the Bombay High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 759/73.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    Harjinder Singh for the Appellant.      O.P. Rana and R.N. Podar for the Respondent. 289      The Order of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI,  J. In  this appeal  by  special  leave  the appellant has  been convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code and  sentenced to  imprisonment for  life. After having gone through  the judgment  of the  Sessions Judge  and  the grounds taken  by the  appellant in  his appeal  by  special leave we  are satisfied  that  this  case  does  raise  some arguable points  which merit  serious consideration  by  the High Court.  We would  like to point out that although under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which is section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the High Court has  the undoubted  power to summarily dismiss a first appeal against  conviction of an accused yet in very serious cases like  those under  section 302  Indian Penal  Code, or other cases where death or life imprisonment can be awarded, the High  Court should consider the appeal on merits instead of dismissing  it summarily, unless the evidence is so clear and cogent, reliable and creditworthy that on the face of it no case for the barest consideration is made out. This Court in Govinda  Kadtuji Kadam  and Ors.  v. State  of Maharastra while laying  down the  guidelines for  dismissing an appeal summarily observed as follows:           "The summary  decision is  accordingly a  judicial      decision which  vitally affects the convicted appellant      and in  a fit  case it  is also  open to  challenge  on      appeal in  this Court. An order summarily dismissing an      appeal by  the word  ’rejected’, as  is the case before      us, though  not violative  of any  statutory  provision      removes  nearly  every  opportunity  for  detection  of      errors in  the order.  Such an order does not speak and      is inscrutable  giving no  indication of  the reasoning      underlying it.  It may  at times  embarrass this  Court      when the  order appealed against prima facie gives rise      to arguable  points which  this Court  is  required  to      consider without having the benefit of the views of the      High Court  on those points. In our opinion, therefore,      when an  appeal in  the High Court raises a serious and      substantial point  which is  prima facie arguable it is      improper for that Court to dismiss it summarily without      giving some  indication  of  its  view  on  the  points      raised." To the  same effect  is the  later decision of this Court in Sita Ram  and  Ors.  v.  State  of  U.P.  where  this  Court reiterated as follows: 290           "The order  summarily dismissing  an appeal by the      High Court  by the  word ’rejected’ is not violative of      any statutory  provision. While  holding that a summary      rejection of  the appeal  by  the  High  Court  is  not      violative  of   any  statutory  provision,  this  Court      pointed out  that it  is  desirable  that  reasons  are      recorded by  the High  Court when  prima facie arguable      issues have  been  raised  as  that  would  enable  the      Supreme Court  to appreciate  the reasons for rejection      of the appeal by the High Court."      We, therefore, hold that even if the High Court chooses to dismiss the appeal summarily some brief reasons should be given so as to enable this Court to judge whether or not the case requires  any further  examination. If  no reasons  are given then  the task  of this Court becomes onerous inasmuch as we  have to perform the function of the High Court itself by reappraising  the entire  evidence resulting  in  serious

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

harassment  and   expense   to   the   accused.   In   these circumstances, we  set aside  the order  of the  High  Court dismissing the  appeal and direct the High Court to re-admit the appeal  and hear it according to law within three months from today, as far as practicable. As the case is a very old one the High Court should give top priority to the case. The entire record  and the  paper books which have been prepared in this  Court should  be sent  to the  High Court which has only to  hear the  counsel for  the parties  and decide  the case. V.D.K.    Appeal allowed. 291