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

PETITIONER: SHIVAJI NARAYAN BACHHAV

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/08/1983

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1014            1983 SCR  (3) 651  1983 SCC  (4) 129        1983 SCALE  (2)117  CITATOR INFO :  R          1986 SC1070  (2)

ACT:      Special Leave  to appeal-Grant  of in  cases where  the High Court  summarily rejects  the appeal against conviction and sentence  in limine-order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules read with  Article 136 of the Constitution-Exercising such a power to  dismiss an appeal in limine under - Section 384 of the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  by  the  Nigh  Court,  would tantamount to denial of right of appeal.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner  was convicted  for the  offence u/s 302 I.P.C. and  sentenced to  life imprisonment  by the Sessions Judge. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the High Court of  Bombay in  limine. Hence  the  appeal  by  Special leave.      Allowing the  petition and  directing the High Court to admit the  appeal and  deal with  it according  to law,  the court ^      HELD: An  appellate Court  has the  undoubted power  to dismiss an  appeal in  limine, as provided under section 384 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure. But, it is a power which must be  exercised sparingly  and with great circumspection, more so in a case where the conviction is for murder and the sentence is  one of imprisonment for life, which are serious enough matters  for the  High Court  to warrant admission of the appeal  and fair  and independent  consideration of  the evidence by  the High Court. Summary rejection of the appeal with the  laconic expression,  "dismissed" is a drastic step in such cases.[653 C-E]      To so reject an appeal is to practically deny the right of appeal.  Except in  certain cases  when an accused person has pleaded guilty and in petty cases every person convicted of an  offence has  a right  of appeal  under the  Code;  an appeal may  be both against conviction and on facts and law. A convicted  person is entitled to ask an appellate Court to reappraise the  evidence and  come to  its  own  conclusion. Therefore, it  is necessary  to make a speaking order, while dismissing a criminal appeal. [653 E-F]      Mustaq Hussain  v. State of Bombay, [ 1953] S.C.R. 809;

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

Ramayya v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 287; Vishwanath Shankar Beldar v. State of Maharashtra, [1969] 3 S.C.C. 883; Siddanna Appa  Rao v.  State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1970 S C. 977; Narayan Nathu Naik v. State of Maharashtra, A.l.R. 1971 S.C. 1656;  Govinda Kadutji  Kadam v.  State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1970  S.C.  1033:  Shaik  Mohamed  Ali  v.  State  of Maharastra, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 43; 652 K.K. Jain  v. State  of Maharashtra,  A.l.R. 1973  S.C. 243; Jeewan Prakash  v. State  of Maharashtra,  A.I.R. 1973  S.C. 278; Mustaq  Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1122; Krishna  Vithu Suroshe v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1974  S.C.   274;  Sampata   Tatyada  Shinde   v.  State  of Maharashtra, A.I.R.  1974 S.C.  791; and  Dagadu v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 Crl. L.J. 724; reiterated.

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 386 of 1983.      From the  Judgment and  order dated the 23rd June, 1981 of the High Court of Bombay in Crl. Appeal No. 1138 and 1144 of 1980.      S. N. Jha, Amicus Curiae for the Appellant.      M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.      The order of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special Leave granted.      The appeal  of  the  accused  to  the  High  Court  was ’dismissed’,  summarily   with  the  one  word  ’dismissed’, placing this  Court  in  a  most  embarrassing  position  in dealing with  the special  leave petition  under Art. 136 of the Constitution.  Such summary  rejection of appeals by the High Court  has been  disapproved by  this Court  more  than thirty years  ago in  Mushtaq Hussain  v. State of Bombay(13 and thereafter,  over the  year;, in  a series of cases from the  same   High  Court:  Ramayya  v.  State  of  Bombay(’), Vishwanath  Shankar   Beldar  v.  State  of  Mahatashtra(3), Siddanna Appa  Rao v. State of Maharashtra(4). Narayan Nathu Naik v.  State of  Maharashtra(5), Govinda  kadutji Kadam v. State of  Maharashtra(6), Shaik  Mohamed  Ali  v.  State  of Maharashtra(7), K.  K.  Jain  v.  State  of  Maharashtra(8), Jeewan 653 Prakash v. State of Maharashtra(l), Mushtaq Ahmed v State of Maharashtra(2),  Krishna   Vithu   Suroshe   v.   State   of Maharashtra(3),  Sampata   Tatyada  Shinde   v.   State   of Maharashtra(4), Dagadu  v. State  of Maharashtra(s).  We are pained, and  not a  little perturbed,  that despite the long series of  judgments all  arising from  cases from  the same High Court,  the High Court has not chosen to correct itself and continues  in the  error of  its ways. Except in certain cases when an accused person has pleaded guilty and in petty cases, every  person convicted  of an offence has a right of appeal under  the Criminal  Procedure Code. An appeal may be both against conviction and sentence and on facts and law. A convicted person  is entitled  to ask  an appellate Court to reappraise the  evidence and  come to its own conclusion. An appellate Court has the undoubted power to dismiss an appeal in limine.  Section  384  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code provides for  it. But, it is a power which must be exercised sparingly and  with great  circumspection. One would think a conviction for  murder and  a sentence  of imprisonment  for life, as  in the case before us, were serious enough matters for the  High Court  to warrant  b ’admission’ of the appeal

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

and fair  and independent  consideration of  the evidence by the High  Court. Summary  rejection of  the appeal  with the laconic expression ’dismissed’ seems to be a drastic step in such cases.  To so  reject an  appeal is to practically deny the right  of appeal.  We  cannot  also  over  emphasis  the importance of  the High  Court making  a speaking order when dismissing a  Criminal Appeal in limine. "The requirement of recording reasons  for summary  dismissal, however  concise, serves  to   ensure  proper   functioning  of  the  judicial process". There  must be some indication that the High Court addressed itself  to the  questions at  issue  and  had  the record before  it. In the present case there. is not even an indication whether  the  record  had  been  called  for  and whether it  was before  the Court. We have little option but to set aside the order of the High Court. The High Court may now ’admit’ the appeal and deal with it according to law. S.R.                                        Petition allowed 654