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

PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURENDER KOTIANKAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/08/1984

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1586            1985 SCR  (1) 349  1984 SCC  (4) 370        1984 SCALE  (2)232

ACT:      Constitution of  India, Article  136-Discretion of  the Court  to   grant  Special   Leave  to  Appeal  in  criminal proceedings-Whether  in  the  absence  of  necessary  papers giving full facts, the Court may refuse leave.      Supreme Court  Rules,  1966,  Order  XXI-Special  Leave Petitions in  Criminal proceedings  must  contain  necessary papers giving full facts.

HEADNOTE:      In  the  petitions  for  special  leave  to  appeal  in criminal proceedings,  the petitioner annexed only a copy of the judgment  of the High Court but did not file any papers, such as,  copies of the charge-sheets or the judgment of the Trial Court which could give full picture of the facts.      Dismissing the petitions, ^      HELD :  1. The  Supreme Court  in the  exercise of  its jurisdiction under  Article 136  may not  propose to proceed further in the matter in which the petitioner has not chosen to file  any papers  in the court apart from the judgment of the High  Court. Therefore,  in the  instant case, the Court will not  be justified in issuing a show cause notice to the respondent when  no attempt  has been  made to place all the facts before it by filing the necessary documents. [350C-D]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL  APPELLATE   JURISDICTION  :   Special   Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 1288 to 1301 of 1983.      From the Judgment and Order dated 31st January, 1983 of the Karnataka  High Court  in Crl. Appeal Nos. 461 to 474 of 1981.      K.L. Sharma and M. Veerappa for the petitioner.      The Order of the Court mas delivered by 350      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. On pleas of guilty, the respondent was convicted of several charges under Sections 408 and 477A and sentenced  in each  case, by  the Trial  Magistrate,  to suffer imprisonment  till the rising of the Court and a fine of either  Rs. 50 or Rs. 100. The State preferred appeals to

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

the High Court for enhancement of the sentences. The appeals were dismissed  on the  ground that  the accused was a young man who  had already  been punished sufficiently by the loss of his  job and  also in  view of the circumstance that more than ten years had elapsed since the date of offence. We are prima facie  satisfied that the sentences are inadequate and that the  lenient sentences  are  the  result  of  misplaced sympathy. We  do not  however propose  to proceed further in the matter in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 as  the State  of Karnataka who is the petitioner before us has  not chosen  to file  any papers before us apart from the  judgment   of  the  High  Court.  The  least  that  the petitioner could  have done to give us a full picture of the facts was  to file  copies  of  the  charge-sheets  and  the charges and  copies of  the judgments  of the Trial Court in the different  cases. We  do  not  think  that  we  will  be justified in  issuing a show-cause notice to the respondents when no  attempt has been made to place all the facts before us by filing the necessary documents. Apparently there is no purposefulness in  the filing  of these  petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. M.L.A.                                  Petitions dismissed. 351