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

PETITIONER: DHONDIBA GUNDU POMAJE & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1974

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1976 AIR 1151            1975 SCR  (2)  66  1976 SCC  (1) 162

ACT: Practice and Procedure-Criminal appeal to High Court-Summary dismissal by High Court-Duty to give reasons.

HEADNOTE: Inasmuch  as under the Constitution any person aggrieved  by an order of the High Court can petition to the Supreme Court under  Art. 136 for special leave, it is  necessary,  having regard to the long series of decisions beginning with [1953] S.C.R.  809, which discourage the practice of  dismissal  by the  one  word ’dismissed, that the High Court  should  give some  reasons why no arguable case is made out on a  perusal of the appeal petition and the judgment of the lower  court. In the absence of reasons. this Court can hold the dismissal to  be justified or allow the appeal only after sending  for the  records, getting the paper books prepared, hearing  the parties   and  appreciating  the  evidence.   This   process involves the Supreme Court being burdened with such  appeals and  doing  what the High Court should do.   Further  during such  avoidable  delay the conviction  person  entertains  a doubt about his conviction and suffers anxiety. [66H-67D]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 325  of 1974. Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dated the 8th April, 1974 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.  Appeal No. 305 of 1974. Sharad  Manchar, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for  the appellants. S. B. Wad and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN  REDDY, J.-We have just now admitted the  special leave,  petition and after the appeal was  registered  heard the learned Advocates for the parties.  This is yet  another case  in which a criminal first appeal against a  conviction has  been  dismissed  summarily under  Section  421  of  the Criminal Procedure Code.  We have heard both sides.  Mr. Wad for the State has strenuously contended that the High  Court has  power  to  dismiss  summarily  and  has  cited  several

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

decisions,  but in all these cases there is nothing  to  the contrary  to  justify a view different from the one  we  are taking  in this case.  It is submitted that  the  dismissal, was so summary that even the record was not called for.   No doubt,  Section  421, Criminal Procedure Code  does  vest  a power  in the High Court to dismiss an appeal summarily  but it can do so only on a perusal of the petition and the  copy of  the  judgment.  Inasmuch as under our  Constitution  any person aggrieved by an order of the High Court can  petition to this Court under Article 136 for special leave, it is not only  necessary  but  having regard to the  long  series  of decisions  beginning as far back as 1953 (see 1953 SCR  809) onwards which discourages this practice of dismissal by  one word ’dismissed’, the High Court should at least have  given some reasons 67 why  no  arguable  case is made out on a  perusal  of  those documents.  Since we are not in a position to ascertain  and it  is contended before us that arguable points do arise  in this case in support of which the statement made in  special leave petition has been read to us, we are not in a position to say that an arguable case does not arise.  We would  have been  able to do so even if we had the slightest inkling  in the order of the High Court.  In the absence of any  reasons what has been happening in many cases is that special  leave is admitted, and after hearing the appeal if this Court  has come to the conclusion that the conviction is valid, it  has held that the dismissal by the High Court is justified.  But this  method, in our view, reverses the process and  imposes unnecessary  burden  on this Court.  What should  have  been done by the High Court, is now being done by this Court.  It is  only  after sending for the records, getting  the  paper books prepared, hearing both parties in the appeal and after appreciation  of  the evidence that it may be held  that  in some cases the dismissal, in fact, was ultimately justified. In many cases the appeals were even allowed. Long  avoidable  delay thus ensues during which  the  person convicted entertains a doubt about his conviction and has to suffer the anxiety caused thereby. We do hope and trust that the series of decisions over  this long  period  disapproving  of  the  practice  of  summarily dismissing by one word will be taken note of and this  Court will  not be ultimately burdened with such  appeals  arising out  of summary dismissals which is really the  function  of the High Court at the first instance. The  appeal is accordingly allowed.  The order of  the  High Court  is  set aside.  The appeal is remanded  to  the  High Court  for hearing for admission and disposal in  accordance with  law  and in the light of the directions made  here  in above. V.P.S. Appeal allowed. 68