RAJ PAL BHIRARAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, under S. 122 (a) and S. 125 (1) read with S. 37(1) (a) of the Bombay Police Act and was sentenced to three months imprisonment under the first count. No separate sentence was passed on the second count. He filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the High Court of Bombay. The appeal was summarily dismissed by a monomial order "dismissed".

(2.) The main argument of counsel for the appellant is that, as the order of the Bombay High Court does not state any reasons, it should be set aside. In support of his argument he has relied on Govinda Kadtuji Kadam v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 1033 and Challapa Ramaswami v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 64. In Govind Kadtuji Kadam (supra) five persons were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs.50/-. All of them filed a joint appeal in the Bombay High Court. The appeal was admitted only on behalf of one of them named Kondu; it was dismissed summarily in respect of the remaining four appellants. They filed an appeal in this Court. Their appeal was allowed and the order of the Bombay High Court was set aside and the case was sent back to the High Court for hearing their appeal on merits after notice to the State. The defence of Kondu was that Vithalrao, the injured person, had sustained the injury by falling on a stone while chasing him (Kondu) and his other companions. Evidently, if his defence was upheld by the Bombay High Court in his appeal, the case against the remaining four appellants would require serious consideration. We think that this consideration persuaded the Court to pass the aforesaid order. The facts of the case before us are entirely distinguishable, as we shall presently point out. Two observations of the Court are instructive. The Court said:

(3.) In Challappa Ramaswami, (supra) the appellant was convicted of the offence under S. 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Session. The appeal was dismissed summarily by one word order "dismissed". This Court set aside the order and remanded the case of the appellant for hearing on merits. It appears from the decision that the Sessions Judge had relied on two eye-witnesses. One of them was the uncle of the deceased. It also appears that in the dying declaration of the deceased made to his uncle, the name of the appellant as his assailant was not mentioned. This Court therefore, said: