N 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
section 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 article 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 vs State of Bombay13 and thereafter over the year in a series of cases from the same High Court Ramayya vs State of Bombay  Vishwanath Shankar Beldar vs State of Mahatashtra3 Siddanna Appa Rao vs State of Maharashtra4
Narayan Nathu Naik vs State of Maharashtra5 Govinda kadutji Kadam vs State of Maharashtra6 Shaik Mohamed Ali vs State of Maharashtra7 K K Jain vs State of Maharashtra8 Jeewan 653 Prakash vs State of Maharashtral Mushtaq Ahmed v State of Maharashtra2 Krishna Vithu Suroshe vs State of Maharashtra3 Sampata Tatyada Shinde vs State of Maharashtra4 Dagadu vs State of Maharashtras
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 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


Summary:
The petitioner was convicted for the offence us 302 IPC 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 cases653 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 vs State of Bombay    Ramayya vs State of Bombay   Vishwanath Shankar Beldar vs State of Maharashtra  Siddanna Appa Rao vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1970 S C 977 Narayan Nathu Naik vs State of Maharashtra Al
R  Govinda Kadutji Kadam vs State of Maharashtra  Shaik Mohamed Ali vs State of Maharastra AIR 1973 SC 43 652 KK Jain vs State of Maharashtra Al
R  Jeewan Prakash vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 278 Mustaq Ahmed vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 1122 Krishna Vithu Suroshe vs State of Maharashtra AIR  Sampata Tatyada Shinde vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 791 and Dagadu vs State of Maharashtra  reiterated