GOVINDA KADTUJI KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four appellants, along with Kondu son of Ambu, were jointly tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on the following charges:

(2.) We may at the outset point out that though on appeal under Section 410,Cr. P. C. by a persons convicted at a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge the appellant is entitled under Section 418 of the Code of challenge the conclusions both on facts and of law and to ask for a reappraisal of the evidence, the appellate Court has nevertheless full power under Section 421, Cr. P. C. to dismiss the appeal in limine even without sending for the records, if on perusal of the impugned order and the petition of the appeal it is satisfied with the correctness of the order appealed against. This power, it may be emphasised, has to be exercised after perusing the petition of appeal and the copy of the order appealed against and after affording to the appellant or his pleader a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the appeal. 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. All 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. The interest of justice and fairplay require the High Court in such cases to given an indication of its views on the points argued so that this Court, in the event of an appeal from that order being presented here, has the benefit of the High Court's opinion on those points.

(3.) The question of summary dismissal of criminal appeals has come up for consideration before this Court on several occasions and broad principles have been stated more than once. In Mushtak Hussain v. State of Bombay, 1953 SCR 809 = (AIR 1953 SC 282), Mahajan J., (as he then was) speaking for the Court said at p. 820 (of SCR) = (at p. 286 of AIR).